Sacrifice your health for your startup | Hacker News Reader

Sacrifice your health for your startup

blog.asmartbear.com

57 pointslrm24254 comments

I disagree with this. It's a net win to exercise. You're repaid for the couple hours a week you lose with greater productivity during the remaining hours.

This is the crucial mistake:

"How much time does a bootstrapped company take? All of it."

That's not true. What a startup (bootstrapped or not) takes is 100% of your performance, not 100% of your time. And optimizing for performance means spending some time on maintenance.

For the same reason, it's not good to live on junk food. It makes you less productive. The best food for founders is probably rice and beans. That's what we lived on during Viaweb.

The best food for founders is probably rice and beans.

I disagree with this suggestion. One, the human body does not readily digest beans. Two, rice is a pretty heavily refined food, and white rice especially has been stripped of most of its nutritional value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_rice).

From the perspective of spending minimal time, I suggest the unintuitive solution of learning to use slow cooking techniques. Most slow-cooked food is fire-and-forget: quickly prepare the ingredients, start the heat source, and get back to your hacking. Three hours later, you have several dinners' worth of excellent food.

Example: A simple beef stew takes about twenty minutes to prepare. Chop up about 1.5 lbs of beef into small pieces, dice one onion, mix with 1.5 lbs of unpeeled (but properly washed and scrubbed) fingerling potatoes cut in halves. Mix with salt and some water in an enameled cast iron 5-quart Dutch oven. Put in a 375-F oven. Return in three hours. You now have about three days worth of dinners. Improvise with spices as you see fit.

I do exactly this. Make lentil soup in the crock pot on Sunday's for lunch all week. I got the prep time down to <30 minutes (before coffee).

It does, eventually, digest beans, though. If the goal is sustained energy, then maybe it's not a bad thing that they aren't readily digested. The same may be true for whole grains, including brown rice.

ha! who said you couldn't get your dinner recipe from HN. we're trying this tonight. thanks!

There isn't anything better than a good beef stew - I've been experimenting on this theme for a few years now. Some tips:

- Only add the onions about 30 minutes before the stew is cooked, otherwise they'll dominate the flavour

- Add button mushrooms (again, about 30 minutes before the end) - they soak up all the juices and become wonderfully tasty.

- Use cheap meat: the miracle of the stew is how it transforms just about any lousy piece of beef in to wonderfully tender morsels that fall apart as soon as you look at them.

(We once cooked a beef bourginon (same thing really, but with some red wine in the stock) for 8 hours on a really low heat - around 100 degrees C. It was the most stunning thing I have ever eaten)

The bourginon sounds delicious but I assume you mean 100 degrees F?

100F isn't cooking, it's barely even keeping it warm.

It depends if we're talking about the oven or stove. I assumed this stew is made on the stove and 100C is not low temperature, but perhaps it's made in the oven.

a little BBQ and W sauce (Worchestershire). And a crock pot.

So use brown rice.

There's more people living on white rice in this world than there are people living in the Western world. Coincidentally, those parts of the world (especially China and Japan) have higher-than-expected life expectancy than most parts of the West. I do not know for sure what makes for healthy living, but simplifications like "white rice is bad" have a lot of real-world evidence going against them.

you are failing to account about genetic differences between asians, and whites (or other non-asians).

Being European, and having been raised with consuming milk/cheese/yogurt products daily, I was stunned to learn that most people of the world are lactose intolerant, and have hard time digest milk.

Also, we Europeans do use bread a lot. And wheat bread is probably a lot healthier than rice, even brown rice.

"And wheat bread is probably a lot healthier than rice, even brown rice."

No dice. Wheat and rice have a similar nutritional profile, however the more grains are processed, the more nutritional value they lose. Bread made from bleached flour is about as nutritional as sugar water; this is why it has to be fortified with vitamins, which sound pretty on the label but aren't actually digested the same way as they would be if the wheat was processed less. Rice (even white rice) beats out bread every time.

Coincidentally, those parts of the world (especially China and Japan) have higher-than-expected life expectancy than most parts of the West

This factoid is taken for granted in these arguments, but if you look it up, it's not true. Japan has a higher life expectancy, but the other white rice eating areas have a lower life expectancy, or are maybe tied. For example, China is 5 years lower than the USA and UK.

PG, you're a great entrepreneur, but a terrible dietician.

You should eat lots of fruits and vegetables, a reasonable number of calories, and lean meats.

The best thing to do if you have a pair of co-founders living together is get a CostCo membership and eat every single meal at home.

Buy $2/lb chicken and ground turkey, and huge cartons of Spring Mix and other vegetables. Buy a huge sack of rice for $20 and a huge bag of flour as well. Buy the cheapest of fruits - oranges and apples - but buy them by the case.

You can eat a balanced diet for just slightly more than rice and beans, feel better, and be more productive.

By rice and beans I didn't mean a recipe with literally two ingredients. I'm assuming you put stuff like peppers and onions in the beans. Or meat if you like. I'm also not saying you should eat rice and beans for every meal; just that most people have a default, and this is a good one if you're short of money.

When I was knocking on doors for a living, rice and beans kept me alive.

Of course you need to eat other ingredients, too. But r&b is a good default, it will keep you from starving, and it costs even less than ramen if you buy in bulk.

If you're gonna get a costco membership, you might as well grab a $1.50 hot dog once in a while ... maybe as a reward for hitting a milestone

You're much better off eating eggs instead of meat. Much cheaper, less time to prepare, much more nutritious. Dairy products are also a less expensive source of protein and fats. Rice and beans and eggs is pretty much an ideal meal in terms of nutrition. Add in some base vegetables (onions, carrots, whatever else is cheap) and fruits for extra vitamins and anti-oxidants and you pretty much have an ideal diet.

Are startup founders really so poor that they have to resort to rice and beans? Even when I was bootstrapping with nothing I could afford to eat a balanced diet. If you are really that poor, you should probably get a job first before starting a startup.

I think it's about stretching with what you have, i.e. rationing your saved-up bootstrap money. Spend 20% less gives you 20% more time, something like that.

What about the rest of the stuff about family? What's your take on that?

This is the worst advice I ever saw, and I hope it's not taken seriously by new startup founders.

I used to work 14 hours a day, with 5 hours of sleep, and another 5 hours for everything else. This lasted for only 3 months, but were enough for the following to happen:

* I exhausted myself. I tried being on schedule and keeping up with the original pace, but in fact my productivity lowered so much that I was LESS productive than in a time when I used to work 3-5 hours a day

* I had developed serious health issues ... because of sleep deprivation I began having supra-ventricular tachycardia episodes

* I became isolated, and lost touch with friends. Lack of social interactions leads to depression and paranoia, and I was there

* I couldn't hold the project in my head and I couldn't see the bigger picture anymore. I was unable to make pragmatic decisions anymore, and whenever I had to make a choice, I got lost in endless arguments (paradox of choice at its peak)

* Good software projects require so much more than technical expertise. When you're exhausting yourself to work, you're bound to lose touch with the real world

* I ended burned-out, and I'm still recovering

Most people are unable to work for 6 hours per day (in the zone). If you're able to constantly maintain 8 hours per day, while maximizing your performance, then you're already ahead.

OP overlooks one critical consideration:

Health math is counterintuitive.

Example (extreme): Suppose you work 12 hours, 6 days per week because that's all you have available.

12 * 6 = 72 hours per week.

Now suppose you decide to add exercise, 1 hour per day, 6 days per week.

You'd intuitively think that would leave you with 6 less hours for work,

72 - 6 = 66.

But the exercise could improve your health (and therefore your effectively while at work, let's say by 10%)

Then you'd have 66 * 1.1 or 72.6 hours of effective work.

So by exercising an hour per day, you get more work done.

I realize the assumptions and the math are oversimplified, but you get the idea.

No reason for a tradeoff when none is needed.

This sort of thinking is the same thing we see in economics as well. Overextending your debt to bet on the future. The problem is, nature always is payed what it is due. Always.

You can skimp on sleep, skimp on eating, skimp on personal relationships, but you WILL pay for it someday, and in spades. Maybe not today or tomorrow but this sort of 'deficit spending' when it comes you your health will absolutely come back and bite you.

This is correct. The problem is that so many people, including top decision-makers within society, are too short-sighted to care about this notion of deficit. "Someone else" will clean it up. Externalized costs and myriad variations of deficit spending (widespread layoffs despite the long-term costs of an underemployed nation; education cuts; environmental damage; ramping up social inequality on both the national and world scale, setting us up for violent revolution and national dissolution) are being tapped for short-term profit even when it's completely unnecessary. That a sizable portion of people are going to disregard their health, working insane hours and using substances of dubious long-term safety, isn't surprising in the least.

I just had the realization that, regardless of financial need, I am going to be working until I'm 70.

This is based on my observation of dozens of people I have met who have won big in the startup lottery. None of them needs the money, but all of them are still working.

So, assuming that I have 40 more years of work ahead of me, I've come to the exact opposite conclusion as the author of the article: I need to take very good care of my hands, arms, eyes, brain and always be learning.

Wow, this is horribly bad advice and the examples provided to bolster it appear disingenuous.

Sure, Mark Cuban lived on bar food and crashed on a single couch in an apartment shared with a number of other guys, but that was before he'd even started as an employee selling software at a small tech shop! As soon as his means let him live better, he did.

The example provided for Penelope Trunk is even worse: The temporary blindness, stress-induced pain, and apparent psychosis seems to have cropped up just as her latest company started accelerating down the road to ruin ( as told at, http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2009/01/05/7-things-to-conside... )

I don't know how long the author's been in business but, if you follow your own advice, your body is likely to give out before your company has an exit.

Your company exists for your benefit, not the other way around.

Having sacrificed my health for my last startup (and largely failing), I fundamentally disagree with the premise of this article. Over 2.5 years I had gained over 30 lbs, and even now, 6 months after quitting it, I am still dealing with the consequences of being unhealthy.

I can tell you that you will see no gains from forgoing an exercise/healthy eating regimen. The time you save is very minimal, and often offset by the need to "screw around" and surfing the web, or hanging out and talking.

Now that I am exercising and eating (better) on a regular basis, I am more focused on the task at hand, have more energy, and more importantly, the emotional balance to tackle the tough daily challenges that running a business/working for yourself brings.

Others' lives are a testament to this as well. While not scientific, I have noticed that well over 90% of the "successful" businesspeople I know have a regular workout and healthy diet regimen.

I think this topic applies to any work-a-holic, startup or not. The question I have is though, is working all the time really the most productive for your startup?

Sure people can work all the hours that god sends but they can't do it indefinitely. From my own personal experience I know that when I do an hour of exercise every day I sleep less and have more energy. That goes for food too, fast food carb-bombs reduce my productivity dramatically.

I think anyone that suggests that you can optimize one things and ignore everything for success is not offering you a complete or balanced picture. Sure one (or more) people might have been successful while doing that, but was it the thing that gave them their success? Personally I would content Mark Cuban's success comes from his drive, and he'd still have won if he'd got a few more early nights.

Without your health you cannot do work therefore health must come first.

Most of the hackers/programmers I know lack a mind-body connection. They live in their minds and are wired to their computers. Many forget that they even have a body--for hours, weeks, months. This can have disastrous consequences later in life.

They are practising "deprivation chic"--they get a feeling of satisfaction out of self-deprivation. Because it hurts they think they must be doing the right thing. <http://nymag.com/news/features/48887/>;

As a 27-year-old entrepreneur and cancer survivor, I can tell you that deprivation chic is just stupid. The long-term sacrifice of one's health is never acceptable.

It is possible to find a work-life balance. But many people get a sense of validation from working for work's sake. It's easier for many to program and blog and run a business than it is for them to cultivate personal relationships, exercise, and enjoy recreation. "The Business" is a great excuse to validate an imbalanced life.

That said, it's possible to be productive and successful without sacrificing health and recreation and personal relationships. It just takes a bit more creativity.

Ok. Reducing his argument to basics, it's better to do work than to do anything else. This means it's better to do work than to sleep. This means it's better to do work than to eat. This means it's better to do work than to drink.

However, if you don't sleep, eat and drink you will die => you won't be able to work. If you "sacrifice health" you will die and you won't work at all. Like a runner who runs first mile of a marathon under 4 minutes and then dies.

Of course, you might say "oh, don't take it that literally". Oh but I will. Otherwise this article looks like a brainwashing, blurry, biased, illogical propaganda, a lot like religion. And don't even begin to ask me about religion.

Reminds me of macho hackers who spend 30-40 of brainless hours before computers pointlessly writing code in ineffective languages. Why? It doesn't help.

Personally, I became a programmer to automate shit I don't like so I can spend less time doing that and more time playing lasertag. Build a leverage => do more with less.

(I'm the author of the article)

Good comments, thanks. I was hoping others would argue the other side; indeed that's also why I started the post with four excellent articles about how you CAN have a family and good health and do a startup.

I, too, have done a decent job with exercise and diet. And of course when you allow your health to deteriorate to the point of having medical problems, nothing's worth that (e.g. @pwncat).

Still, I've never seen actual evidence for claims that skimping on sleeping and eating for a few years will cause you to "pay for it in spades" (@trevorj).

The best counter-argument IMHO is along the lines of @sh1mmer -- that over-extending yourself doesn't equal more productivity. Again, I made that same point myself in my post and included a specific argument for why this is true.

In the end though, I maintain that it's the obsession that drives not just the startup but this self-destructive behavior, and the obsession is required.

Thanks all for a great debate!

If you've not seen any evidence that sacrificing health for work is a losing strategy, you haven't looked hard enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kar%C5%8Dshi

I think many more people can agree that passion/obsession is required; self-destructive behavior can be caused by this obsession.

But your post suggest the causal link is the opposite: that sacrificing health and family can lead to success. I think that's misleading, and hope you don't believe it either.

Of course being unhealthy doesn't lead to success. I suppose the title might suggest that but obviously that's artistic license.

The message is that obsession is key and often the trade-off is in favor of time with the business and not time where it might be "better" spent.

If you're funded, you don't need this advice. If you're not -- and I've done two bootstrapped startups myself -- I'm not sure you can escape it.

All interesting deadline-based work involves some degree of overworking at one point - not just startups, but journalists, project managers & many others. But the problem with asking 'successful bootstrappers' whether it was all worth it in hindsight is survivorship bias. They survived & got successful. Ask someone whose great idea failed because they fell ill & you get a different picture - especially in the US where leaving a job to startup can mean foregoing medical coverage.

There are times when a burst of excessive work is both necessary & beneficial - but it's not universal.

No thanks, my health is more important than money.

Yeah, dead right. And even if he was right and it "worked", I'd still be saying no thanks. My family is far more important than money.

working on a startup is not a sprint, its a marathon and you need good health to run it. Maintaining health is vital to your thought process and your ability to make better decision.

As an entrepreneur, I workout 5 days a week (sometimes more), and it only takes away 1.5 hours of my time. And during which I listen to podcasts, or think about feature designs, etc. so its not total 1.5 hour lost.

I've lived various stretches of my life in balanced and utterly imbalanced states and I can say with quite a bit of certainty that balance always wins, both in terms of happiness and performance.

The other thing about sacrificing everything for your startup that people seem to forget is that when you sacrifice everything and your startup fails -- which, statistically, it will -- you're left with nothing. Having no money is an inconvenience next to being in poor health and having nothing else in life to fall back on emotionally.

At any point in life where you're sacrificing everything and removing all you have to fall back on, you're setting yourself up for failure. Nothing in life is certain, but nothing in life is less certain than a startup.

This just doesn't seem to be empirically true. When I took on demanding jobs I found that I needed to exercise more as I'd need to concentrate for longer stretches of time.

The first position that I took out of college was a fairly demanding (in a good way) and challenging position. At the time I was overweight and began experiencing some early stage diabetes symptoms (constant thirst, fatigue). I've found that I'd want to do more work but lacked the energy. Losing weight and developing a habit of exercise greatly changed that and I have been able to not only work longer hours, but to more productive when working same hours.

Some of the most "hard core" entrepreneurs I know specifically make a point of exercising, even if they do nothing else besides work the entire day.

I also wonder if there any other needs that, if neglected, greatly impact immediate performance (in addition to just being a sort of "deficit spending" in the long term): e.g. if one is an extrovert and is left with no time for social/group interaction is their performance degraded as well (and conversely if an introvert spends all of his time working in a high-interruption open office environment)?

Health is Wealth.

No, you shouldn't do this.

Balancing in exercise will only help you. You're better off reducing the number of features you create and focusing on your core feature.

While you're exercising, you can think about how to make that core feature even better.

My brain seems to be a bit happier with a level of blood sugar that leads to weight gain, even with exercise. Caffeine doesn't seem to completely offset this.

Any suggestions?

sounds like you need to train your body to be happy with less sugar... gradually reduce the amount of sugar in your diet - could lead to diabetes

It's not my body that likes blood sugar, it's my brain.

And, when I say "my brain likes blood sugar", I mean that it's happy when I'm grazing on bread-like carbs, which produce glucose, not sucrose/fructose/etc per se.

yes, your brain needs sugar to function - one of the reasons I find that low-carb diets are awful for my productivity - my brain shuts down If you're living on carbs that's not good for you either

oh, and serious cardio should combat the weight gain you speak of

We are very obsessed with success. We can sacrifice everything in pursuit of an idea, our health, family and friends. But success is empty, we have different ideas of success. What will be the next sacrifice if you win?

This is a great example of why I don't have a startup project right now. There's nothing I can think of that I care about enough to want to work like that.

Terrible idea, actually. The productivity gained by the health sacrifices is dubious and might be counterbalanced by the negatives.

Sacrificing most of the fun but not productive activities that fill the hours of less-ambitious young people (video games, TV, social drinking, chasing tail) is reasonable (I haven't had a drop of alcohol, or been on a date, in months). An occasional 5-hour night of sleep can be justified by a freakish, almost hypomanic productive streak. Sacrificing one's health for work is idiotic, and going 7 years without taking a vacation is nothing to be proud of.

[Edit: I developed panic disorder from working through a severe flu, in an overbearing environment. I'm still on meds, over a year later. So I have personal experience to support my claims.]

To follow this up, I would also say the risk/reward ratio is not stacked in your favor.

How happy and fulfilled would you be if you had a successful career but your health and personal relationships where in shambles? In my personal experience, nothing matters as much as those. I have been in a situation where I very nearly died, and let me tell you, you don't think about your career, or the money in situations like that. Those things simply are of no comfort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com