The army has done a lot of research on this topic from WWII onwards. I've read some of the studies. I've also read some papers done in the private sector on thi

The army has done a lot of research on this topic from WWII onwards. I've read some of the studies. I've also read some papers done in the private sector on this topic in the construction industry. What they found was about the same: people who work more that 40 hours a week can do so for a short period of time before it starts to impact a lot of aspects of their health, which translates directly to their performance. This is not controversial. What I haven't seen much of is how it affects people who don't soldier for a living or who don't work with their hands outdoors for a living. People like me who code. I'm sure the studies are out there, I haven't taken the time to read them. My guess is that the negative impact of working longer hours to outcomes is even more pronounced, not less. I can cite an internal audit at a large software company I worked at back in the 00's. They found that having people work longer hours wasn't worth it. Period. It didn't improve linear increased output, it produced a negative output ratio per hour overall, furthermore it increased attrition and problems with engineering implementations. Note that said software company's goals were well aligned with getting people to work as long as possible for the same money and they still reached this conclusion. So go ahead. Work those longer hours. Just be aware that the all the best numbers we have don't support you doing it for long for any good reason.