Pomodoro Timer
A focus timer alternating work sessions and breaks, with the history of the technique and an honest note on where it does and does not suit.
Session 1 · 0 completed
The cycle is 130 minutes, not 30
With the settings above — 25 minutes of focus, 5 short, 15 long, a long break after 4 — one complete cycle runs 4 × 25 + 3 × 5 + 15 = 130 minutes, of which 100 are focus. That is 76.9% efficiency, and it sets the exchange rate between the work you want to do and the day you have to spend:
| Focus wanted | Time on the clock | Spent on breaks |
|---|---|---|
| 2 hours | 2.6 hours | 36 min |
| 4 hours | 5.2 hours | 72 min |
| 6 hours | 7.8 hours | 108 min |
| 8 hours | 10.4 hours | 144 min |
Six hours of focused work just fits into an eight-hour day, with twelve minutes to spare. Seven hours needs 9.1 hours and does not fit at all. Run properly, an eight-hour day yields 15 blocks — 375 minutes, or six and a quarter hours — and no arrangement of these numbers gets past about 78% of the clock.
The cycle also does not fit the clock. 130 minutes leaves a remainder of 10 against the hour, so each cycle starts 10 minutes later past the hour than the last and the pattern only repeats after 6 cycles — 13 hours. Within a working day no two cycles begin at the same minute past the hour, which is why this and a calendar of meetings on the half hour can never be made to line up.
A fifteen-minute meeting destroys thirty-one minutes of focus
Drop a meeting at a random point in the cycle. It overlaps some focus time, which is unavoidable — but the rule that makes this technique work is that an interrupted block does not count. Every block the meeting touches is lost entirely, including the parts either side of it:
| Meeting | Focus overlapped | Blocks touched | Focus destroyed | Cost per minute |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 min | 11.5 min | 1.23 | 30.8 min | 2.05× |
| 30 min | 23.1 min | 1.69 | 42.3 min | 1.41× |
| 60 min | 46.2 min | 2.62 | 65.4 min | 1.09× |
A quarter-hour interruption costs slightly more than twice its own length. An hour-long one costs barely more than its own length. The damage is roughly "however many 25-minute blocks you touch", and a short meeting still touches at least one — so the fixed cost of breaking a block dominates when the meeting is short and washes out when it is long.
Which inverts the usual advice about protecting your calendar. Four scattered fifteen-minute interruptions destroy about 123 minutes of focus between them. The same hour taken in one block destroys 65. Batching saves 58 minutes without removing a single meeting.
It is also an argument for shorter blocks if your day is genuinely interrupt-driven. The penalty is proportional to the block length, so a run of ten-minute blocks loses far less to the same interruption than a run of twenty-five-minute ones — at the cost of never reaching the deep stretch the technique exists to protect.
How to use
- Start a work session and stay on one task.
- Take the short break when it ends — properly.
- Take a longer break after four sessions.
- Adjust the intervals if 25 minutes does not suit your work.
Frequently asked questions
Where does the technique come from?
Francesco Cirillo devised it as a university student in the late 1980s, using a tomato-shaped kitchen timer — pomodoro being Italian for tomato. The 25-minute interval was simply what his timer offered, not a finding from research, which is worth knowing before treating it as optimal.
Should I stick to 25 minutes?
Only if it works for you. The interval is arbitrary in origin, and deep technical or creative work often needs longer to get properly into. Some people do far better with 50 minutes and a 10-minute break. The structure is the useful part; the specific number is not sacred.
What if I am interrupted?
The original method says to note the interruption and either handle it after the session or, if it cannot wait, abandon the session and start again. The point of recording interruptions is that seeing how many you get is often more useful than the timer itself.
Why does the break matter?
Because sustained attention degrades, and the break is what makes the next session productive rather than merely long. Working through breaks defeats the technique — people who do so typically report that it stopped working, which is precisely why.
Does it work for everyone?
No, and it is oversold. Work requiring long uninterrupted immersion suffers from being chopped up, and being pulled out of a productive state by a timer can cost more than the break returns. It suits tasks you are avoiding, or work that fragments naturally, far better than deep flow.
Should breaks involve a screen?
Preferably not. Standing up, moving, looking at something distant and resting the eyes does considerably more for the next session than switching from one screen to another. The break is meant to be a change of mode, not a change of tab.
🔒 This tool runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you enter is uploaded, logged, or stored.