Burnout: The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle

Forced myself to make it half way but couldn't stomach the rest. Got sick of hearing about how all my problems are the patriarchy's fault. Least helpful self-help book I've ever (half) read.

Structure: ★★★★ Prose: ★ Pacing: ★★★ Intrigue: ★ Logic: ★ Enjoyment: ★Overall Rating: ★★A seemingly well-meaning self help piece that relies too heavily on misrepresenting research findings and leaning on philosophical theories.I'm a woman. I get burnt out. You'd think this would be the perfect book to find some enlightening information on how to cope. Instead, I found myself reading through more of the research the authors cited than the actual book itself, which in its own way burned me out!I don't disagree with a lot of the basic premises of this book. I agree with the Nagoskis' explanation of the stress cycle and how one might break out of it. I agree with the solutions they provide to help relieve stress and find support. I also agree with a lot of the feminist rhetoric they reference throughout the book (yes, the patriarchy [ugh] is real and yes, it can be a contributing factor to any person's stress.) Having said that, the information that I found to be relevant and factual wasn't all that groundbreaking and I'm sure anyone could find a TikTok or YouTube video that explains all the useful information in under 5 minutes. That's really unfortunate considering the shortcomings weighing against the work (in my opinion).Firstly, the prose was infuriating and borderline condescending. It felt very much as if this entire book was written for middle-grade students, not women, especially with the number of Disney references used to explain basic concepts. Ideas were over simplified and spoken in a tone that held 100% conviction in blatantly untrue statements (more on that later) while also somewhat talking down to the reader. The uses of (ugh) with any mention of ‘the patriarchy' and Nietzsche was insane to me. How can these women be hammering feminist philosophy into our heads the entire book yet they cringe every time they mention (and they mention it A LOT) one of feminism's most basic principles? They also provide TLDRs at the end of each chapter, which is an odd choice because it invites the reader to skip ¾'s of their book.My next big issue with the book is the ubiquitous thread of the Human Giver Syndrome (HGS) feminist philosophy used throughout the book to prove every point they make. It's one thing to mention HGS once or twice to drive a point across but I find it troubling that a philosophical theory is the essence of every chapter in this book and is written as absolute truth. Not only do I find it discrediting to use a single theory as the foundation of a mental health self help book, but the idea itself I find hard to support. The theory that all women (and all femmes and people of colour as per the footnote) are virtually born into giving every drop of their existence to checks notes all white men (and I guess all NBs and mascs too since they're not included in the previous footnote). This feels really icky and borderline sexist. I know some may relate to this idea and maybe it even helps some people realize a cycle they're in, but HGS just feels like an easy out; all women are victims to the system and white guys are benefitting off the patriarchy (ugh). The Nagoskis also flip flop between being a Human Giver as a good thing and a bad thing. Inherently, the suggestion is that no one should be a Human Giver because it strips your autonomy and self worth through giving “every drop of your humanity” to another (a man), yet it's also described as a great quality in women because we're therefore more conscientious and caring. When you describe something so visceral as giving your whole humanity to others, I don't know if you can backpaddle and spin it as a cute positive quirk that supposedly every femme and POC possesses. They even go so far as to suggest “[giving your] boys a lesson each day in being a human giver”. You want to teach your child to be codependent? That's not very healthy, and it's strange that we wouldn't just teach our daughters NOT to be human givers, no? I don't relate to HGS and it's definitely not a reason for my burnout, no matter how many times this book tries to affirm that it is. I've only identified with HGS in a past highly abusive and manipulative relationship, so I fear for the women who see this type of relationship to men as the norm.Lastly, but arguably most importantly, the authors misrepresent or straight up give inaccurate information from the sources they cite throughout the book. I read through a few dozen of the sources they cite to validate the accuracy of the information they provide throughout the book and was left very disappointed multiple times. Here are just some of the examples I wrote down:- They mention an article that apparently supports the ‘redistribution of sex' to support incels, yet the actual article (albeit written in a cringy right-wing tone) does suggest that sex should be a human right but is strongly against the idea of ‘redistribution of sex'. Instead the author suggests that decriminalizing sex work and promoting the innovation of sex robots (yeah) can help incels gain access to consensual sex. That's very different than the alarming characterization they made that a major newspaper supported forcing women into sex for incels.- They cite a study in Fiji where young girls watched American TV for the first time and stated that 29% of respondents showed signs of an ED within months. The study only interviewed 30 girls and the questions seemed to be leading the girls into answering that they were willing to diet to look like their favourite characters like Xena and Agent Dana Scully. While I'm sure there is validity to the argument that media changes how we see our bodies, a study of 30 girls in an interview study doesn't feel like a super credible source to hinge an important argument on. Also, 29% of 30 is 8.7 so I'm not sure how they got that percentage...- Later in the chapter they connect TWO sources to the statement, “only a very small fraction of the population can lose weight and sustain that weight loss through diet and exercise, establishing a new defended weight.” The first source is an “anti-obesity drug study” from the 1980's that's main goal was to prove that anti-obesity drugs work better than any other method of weight control after crash dieting. Okay, so not only is this study extremely problematic and antithetical to the Nagoskis' arguments, but they're using it to tell people that exercise and healthy eating won't help them reach any goals they might have? The first problem with this study is that all the participants crash dieted (an extremely unhealthy weight-loss method known to cause people to bounce back to their original weight shortly after), so that alone disregards ‘healthy diet and exercise'. Secondly, the study is aimed at discrediting any other method of weight management in order to promote their drug, however the healthy diet control group DID still see the benefits of a slower weight gain toward their original weight. The second study the Nagoskis cite actually contradicts their statement as well, with the study's conclusion reading, “Several studies using the Aerobic Center Longitudinal Study database have observed that cardiorespiratory fitness level and physical activity level are inversely associated with future weight gain,” meaning that people are less likely to go back to a defended weight as they exercise more. Neither study mentioned anything associated with or similar to a “defended weight”. So why are the Nagoskis telling readers that very few people can succeed in creating a new defended weight (if they want to!) when the studies they cite back to actually prove the opposite, even the problematic one they chose to use for some reason.- The last occurrence I'll mention (there are many more but I must move on with my life) is when the Nagoskis declare that men are more likely to use separate knowing and women are more likely to use connected knowing, and that is why women are Human Givers and men are not. What's really interesting is (drumroll please) that's actually just false! The study they cite for that statement actually says that men and women use both types of ‘knowing' equally, and that social context was more indicative of which gender used a specific type of knowing more. So really, men and women use different types of knowing based on which social groups they're with rather than intrinsically using one or the other more based on gender. I'm really trying not to believe that the authors acted in bad faith and assumed readers wouldn't look into the sources they provided, but the only other explanation for so many misrepresentations and twisting of facts is incompetence, and I just don't think that's much better.In conclusion, I ended up feeling more burnt out after reading this book than when I started. I constantly felt like I was being lied to in order to induce gender-based rage rather than actually addressing everyday reasons for burnout like the political and economic state of the world, international conflict, job instability, cost of living, loneliness, family and friend relationships, physical and mental health conditions, and so much more on top of the basic gender issues the authors single-mindedly hammered home. I was really close to giving this a 1-star but in the end they did give SOME useful and truthful information about breaking the stress cycle that I'm sure some people will find useful.

Kind, compassionate, some actual useful practical advice. 

This kind of bounces around a bit I feel, but it's all really great information. I took a few of these technique for myself and my partner (the 6 sec. kiss and 20 sec. hug) that i've been keeping up with and it's just very nice.

They talk a lot of society stressors too. It's got more of a female focus but I think there are a lot of helpful things in here for general interest.

It's more of a 3 star, but since i've found some great things that i've been using I bumped it up to a 4!

I picked this up on a whim after someone mentioned it in a recent convo. I knew nothing about the book or the authors and was pleasantly surprised by it.

However, I think it's for a very specific type of target market. It is directed only to womxn. It's written very casually, with humor, and clearly intended to be relatable. It's a fun read, with stories of two composite women sprinkled in. It discusses science, includes notes, but it's not clinical. But I think the reader already needs to understand the basic gist of some of the societal issues around gender and patriarchy before reading this.

I'm seeing from other reviews that many people are not understanding where this analysis is coming from. It's not a simple thing to analyze the root causes of why society is the way it is, and it requires an open mind, introspection, and the ability to see some really unpleasant stuff. If this is your first exposure to these ideas (i.e. if you're a woman uncomfortable with the word feminist), this may be a bit of a shock. It absolutely ties into burnout, yes, but on a much deeper level than what's expected by most readers.

I feel like I would recommend this to people who are already familiar with these ideas. The authors have tried to make it accessible, but I think it's going to be too much for, say, a conservative-leaning woman who attends a church where only men are allowed to lead, and she's never actually thought deeply about why that is. There's just so much to unpack here. Women in these situations are explicitly taught they can't trust themselves and they're going to dismiss this book outright as soon as they see the word “patriarchy.” I'm not sure what book I'd recommend there, other than to start with just learning about your own self-worth and capacity to be a whole human separate from any required roles you think you need to fulfill. This is absolutely the Human Giver concept they discuss in the book; that is the quintessential Christian housewife, and even if you don't identify with that, if you're American you live in a country saturated with those ideals.

So if you're a womxn who calls yourself a feminist and need to be reminded about some of the core issues and things you already know you should be doing I'd recommend this. It's just not about solely “burnout” per se. It's about what's behind your own expectations for who and how you have to be in this world, and it asks you to consider whether these absorbed ideas are helping or hurting you.

This book was fantastic. There was so much that I took out of it. I had to take so many breaks purely because every sentence was a separate journaling prompt. Which is EXHAUSTING at times! Emily Nagoski has such an awesome way with words, it was the perfect of scientific fact and down to earth analysis and comparison. I really enjoyed that the information was distilled to a level that was digestible for someone who is not in STEM. I would recommend to anyone wanting to understand stress: where it comes from, why we carry it, how we carry it, and how we can set it down for awhile or release it for good.

More like 3.5 stars. A liiiittle too cheesy for my tastes and a few chapters were just meh. But I did like that the authors, who are twin sisters, read the book together and took turns reading chapters. They were good audiobook narrators and I would actually listen to them again.

I tend to find the sort of review I'm about to write attention-seeking and reeking of ‘I'm not like other girls'. Unfortunately, this book does not apply to me, and I figured that this review, wanky as it may be, might help you decide if it is for you.

Recommended by a dear friend who thought it might be of help to me (a person who routinely suffers from major burnout) I was determined to give it a fair go. However, it failed to move me in the first half and I don't think I will make it to the second. I didn't feel that the proposed societal pressures on how to look and what kind of woman I ought to be really translated to my life, and I found the suggestion of ‘human giver syndrome' somewhat obvious and reductive. Overwhelmingly, I didn't find much actionable advice.

I generally work 10-14 hour days, and this year I have really pushed it. I love my job and that keeps me going, but right now I'm a bit burned out. Listening to a chapter about how the ‘bikini industry' is lying to women, I decided to give this book a rest. There's a large amount of pop feminism interspersed with basic self-help stress management, and for me, I think I would have found a less targeted book less irritating. I am a feminist myself, but I find the sort of rhetoric found here very 2015, basic, and unhelpful.

One to pick up from the library, I think. It started out strong for me, but consistently lost momentum and logical structure. I literally had to make myself an outline to make sure I hadn't missed some major ideas meant to tie things together.

The bit describing really concrete stuff you can do to purge a stress response from your body was great. It's also super helpful to be reminded that one must deal with the stress separately from dealing with the stressor - they don't necessarily have the same solutions.

The stuff about expectations, frustration, positive reappraisal, and generally dealing with the stressors (as distinct from the stress) was pretty good. Also having content about deciding when to quit - helpful.

Then the structure of the book kind of petered out and we got a mix of chapters about stuff that's generally good for people: Meaning, rest, human connection. I feel like pretty much everyone knows this stuff.

I felt personally similar during the chapters about how the patriarchy causes extra stress for women. Some revolutionary content here for women who haven't gone over this ground, but I'm pretty confident now in my relationship to Human Giver Syndrome and the Bikini Industrial Complex, so while I nodded along, it didn't add a lot for me.

Finally, we get a section about how everyone has a personal Mrs. Rochester in her head and you have to make friends with her or feel compassion for her. I didn't understand this or connect with it at all. The meaning was really foggy to me, not well explained.

I also have to give a demerit for over-the-top cutesiness expressed in constant references to Disney movies (CONSTANT), and silly made-up words that seemed to have little to do with sincere communication and all to do with ostentatious quirkiness.

Still, I'm glad I read it just for the first few chapters, and the occasionally gems thereafter!

Very readable, feminist approach. You should know many of these things, but you still have to put them into practice to get them to work (I imagine)

Mixed feelings! I loved Come As You Are and I expected this to be even more insightful and relatable.

But, it left me kind of cold, and I was even rolling my eyes at some points... I'm not sure I buy the main premise, which is that you can be carrying decades worth of “uncompleted” stress cycles in your body. I mean, sure, it's good to do something physical to let your body feel that you've escaped the lion that's chasing you in these modern times when the lion is, like, a stressful email. But the idea that there's a debit of “uncompleted” cycles that build up over years seems a bit far-fetched to me. I guess maybe for people who literally never exercise or relax at all?

I do believe the bits about how exercise is good, sleep is important, being overweight isn't necessarily unhealthy, and social connections are vital... but none of that is news.

They describe burnout as being rooted in “Human Giver Syndrome”, which is to say, the core idea in our society that givers (usually women) are supposed to sacrifice themselves in order to support the actualization of “human beings” (usually men). I buy that this is a thing that many women feel, but personally it does not get at the core of my feelings of burnout. (I relate far more to the description of burnout that talks about lack of control over outcomes, lack of meaning, etc.)

I do relate to the talk about perfectionism and self-compassion; but that's addressed here in a pretty cursory way. I've read other works that were far more helpful in that area (Brene Brown comes to mind).