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.<p>I realized that I was waiting to have energy before doing something. Blaming my lack of action on a lack of energy.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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_.<p>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.
> 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.<p>Did this assignment have a minimum word count? I know it's the New Yorker, but gah I couldn't handle it
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.<p>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.<p>The article wastes a lot of words on basically nothing.
Have any fellow HN readers struggled with low energy levels for more than 5+ years and ever figured out how to counteract it?<p>Curious to hear what worked for you.<p>Definition of low energy levels in this context:<p>* struggles to work more than 20 hours a week without spending the rest of each day and the weekend recuperating.<p>* 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.<p>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).<p>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:<p>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.<p>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.
Does anybody actually read these blobs of text which are basically a lazy rant from the writer to improve his wordcount?<p>Writers should <i>always</i> write for the reader.
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
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<p>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?