We aren’t built for constant output

I’ve been reading a series of articles by Scott Young recently on energy and productivity, and one idea has really stuck with me.

The idea of rhythmic productivity.

It’s simple, but it challenges a lot of what modern work expects from us.

• Constant output.

• Fixed schedules.

• Always on.

That’s the default in many workplaces now.

But it doesn’t reflect how humans actually function.

Even if we go back to times when work was more physically demanding, there was still rhythm. People worked hard, but their schedules were shaped by the seasons. There were natural limits. Winter slowed things down. Daylight mattered.

There were built-in brakes.

But now those brakes have largely disappeared.

Work can continue almost indefinitely. It spills into evenings. It nudges into weekends. And because so much of it is digital, there’s very little forcing us to stop.

The expectation, often unspoken, is that we should be able to maintain a steady level of output throughout.

But human energy doesn’t work like that.

We’re built for cycles:

• Periods of focused effort
  Followed by recovery
  Then back into focus again

Not a constant, flat line.

What I found particularly useful in Scott Young’s writing is that the answer isn’t necessarily to do less. It’s to work differently. To build in recovery, rather than treating it as something optional or indulgent.

Because rest is often misunderstood.

• Rest isn’t laziness.
  It isn’t a lack of ambition.
  It isn’t “dead time”.

It’s part of the process that allows us to sustain effort over time.

Athletes understand this. Training hard is only one part of performance. Recovery is what allows the body to repair, adapt and come back stronger. Without it, performance drops.

Yet when it comes to mental work, we often expect the opposite. We expect ourselves to stay switched on, responsive and productive all the time. And when we can’t, we assume something is wrong with us.

If it’s accepted that physical performance depends on cycles of effort and recovery, why do we assume mental performance is any different?

Are we designing our work in a way that people can actually sustain?

Or are we expecting consistency from something that is naturally variable?