According to Fast Company, University of Cambridge mental health researcher Olivia Remes has suggested that working for 52 minutes followed by 17-minute breaks represents the optimal productivity pattern for tackling afternoon slumps. Remes, who holds a PhD in public health and primary care from Cambridge, shared on Instagram that “the most productive people work for about 52 minutes at a time and then take 17-minute breaks,” adding that “this is much better than working for long stretches.” The 52/17 rule has existed for several years but Cambridge’s recent social media post has renewed discussion about this specific timing approach compared to other productivity methods like the popular Pomodoro Technique’s 25-minute work sessions.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Psychology of Work Rhythms
What’s particularly interesting about the 52/17 ratio isn’t the specific numbers themselves, but the underlying principle of structured rhythmic working. The human brain naturally operates in cycles of focused attention and diffuse thinking, and different tasks require different cognitive approaches. Deep work tasks like coding, writing, or complex problem-solving often benefit from longer uninterrupted periods, while more repetitive tasks might thrive with shorter bursts. The danger lies in treating 52/17 as a universal prescription rather than understanding it as one possible rhythm among many. Research into productivity patterns suggests that individual variation matters significantly—some people naturally work in 90-minute ultradian rhythms, while others prefer shorter cycles.
The Workplace Reality Check
While the theory sounds compelling, implementing rigid 52/17 cycles faces significant practical hurdles in most professional environments. Modern work is increasingly collaborative, with meetings, instant messaging, and team coordination creating natural interruptions that don’t align neatly with predetermined break schedules. The cognitive cost of context switching—stopping a complex task at exactly 52 minutes regardless of where you are in your workflow—could actually undermine productivity rather than enhance it. Many knowledge workers report that their most productive periods occur during “flow states” that can last 90 minutes or more, and interrupting these deliberately could be counterproductive.
One Size Doesn’t Fit All Brains
The most significant limitation of prescriptive productivity methods is their failure to account for neurodiversity and individual working styles. People with ADHD, for example, often work better in shorter, more intense bursts followed by longer breaks. Creative professionals might need extended uninterrupted periods for ideation, while analytical workers might benefit from the structure of timed sessions. Even circadian rhythms play a role—many people experience natural energy dips in the early afternoon that no break schedule can completely overcome. Rather than searching for a universal optimal timing, workers would benefit more from understanding their own cognitive patterns and designing personalized work rhythms accordingly.
Sustainable Productivity Over Quick Fixes
The fundamental issue with productivity hacks like 52/17 is their focus on timing rather than the quality and nature of the work itself. True sustainable productivity comes from engaging work, clear goals, adequate resources, and psychological safety—not just optimized break schedules. While regular breaks are undoubtedly important for maintaining focus and preventing burnout, the specific timing matters less than ensuring breaks are truly restorative. A 17-minute break spent scrolling social media may be less beneficial than a 10-minute walk outside or a 5-minute meditation session. The most effective productivity strategy is likely one that combines awareness of individual rhythms with flexibility to adapt to different types of work and changing daily circumstances.
