For years, my policy has been to get things done. Oh, sure, everyone says that. But, I mean get things finished. Which may mean I put in a 36 hour day (yes, I know how ludicrous that sounds- but it’s not a new day unless I go to bed), an 18 hour day, a 10 hour day- or a 2 hour day.

And, as we discussed yesterday, given the fact that I was (and am) a ‘capitalist’, I was never afflicted with depression or anxiety. Oh, sure I worried about the risks I was taking- and those risks that were foisted upon my entities. But, thankfully, my mental health was never an issue.

But, I also know that working these non-stop hours takes its toll on my body. More particularly, working these long hours takes its toll on one’s cardiovascular system. So, now that I am older, I do try to keep my maximum working hours in a week closer to 48 (over 6 days), with no days exceeding 12 working hours. And, when I need early morning and late evening efforts, I take time off in the middle of the day to swim, to bike- even to nap.

Because the data is clear.

Not quite as clear (or as erroneous) as our newspaper headlines decry. The Washington Post, when describing these medical studies, declared that 11 hour days were deadly. But, that’s not quite what the research indicated.

The most recent paper was found in the Lancet, written by Urban Janlert. This paper examined the century old hypothesis of William Osler that “the wear and tear of life” provides the underlying reasons behind the occurrence of myocardial infarction (heart attacks). Yet, the data is much less clear-cut.

There have been slews of studies on both sides of the fence. (You should examine the references in the paper by Janlert to discern the controversies.) The data demonstrates that working long hours is not associated with metabolic syndrome. But, working conditions (environmental health factors) clearly affect the results.

Then, there’s the paper by Drs. M Kivimaki, M Jokela, A Singh-Manoux, E Fransson, L. Alfredsson, J Bjorner, M Morritz, H Burr, A Casini, E Clays, D De Bacquer, N Dragano, R ERbei, G Geuskens, M. Hamer, W Hooftman, I Houtman, KH Jockel, F Kittel, A Knutsson, M Koskenvuo, E Madsen, M Nielsen, M. Nordin, T Oksanen, J Pejtersen, R Rugulies, P Saio, J Siegrist, A Steptoe, S Suominen, T Theorell, J Vahtera, P Westerholm, H Westerlund, D O’Reilly, M Kumari, GD Batty, J Ferrie, M Virtanen, along with ST Nyberg, T. Lunau, J. Pentti, and M Shipley. (Don’t worry- I have a paper in the queue about the overinflation- or not- of authors on a manuscript.) Published in the Lancet, this multi-center, multi-nation (25 studies, 24 cohorts, with subjects in the EU, Australia, and US) study examined 603,838 subjects via metadata and systematic analysis. The key finding reported in the article- longer hours poses an increased risk of stroke (33%), but not as great (13%) for coronary heart disease. That comparison was between those who toil 35-40 hours versus those who exceed 55 hours a week.. This means vascular risk factors should be examined more carefully for folks who work these longer hours.

Couple this with other results- such as a higher risk for type 2 diabetes for those employed at low-income jobs, while toiling some 55 hours a week. Or, inactivity for 11 hours a day (this was for older women) led to early death.  You can see that working long stints of overtime does not bode well for one’s health.

The other article that interested me also had a plethora of authors- most of whom were found on Kivimaki’s (the senior author above) paper, so I’ll just identify the primary author here- Dr. Marianna Virtanen. This study. published in the British Medical Journal, examined 333,693 subjects and the effect of their longer working hours on alcohol consumption. Not surprisingly, those working longer hours clearly imbibed alcohol at levels that posed health risks- above and beyond those of simply working longer hours.

Then, there’s the practical data (Dr. John Pencavel, Stanford) that demonstrates our productivity is abysmal as we exceed 50 hours of weekly effort. Moreover, his data demonstrates that our effective output at 56 hours had no discernable difference that our output at 70 hours a week. (I am glad I was the exception to this finding.)

But, you should also know that there is nothing magical about 55 hours. Other than the fact that this was the “common” cut-off employed in older research. It’s clear that 55 hours is probably the median “long-hour” week. However, keeping our work weeks to 48 hours, such as the Working Time Directive issued by the European Union, is probably a good maxim.