Inspirieren

Finding Inspiration in Perspiration

Two kinds of sweat

Thomas Edison is supposed to have said that genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. The line has been printed on so many classroom posters and gym walls that it has almost stopped meaning anything, which is a pity, because it smuggles in two separate claims that are both worth taking seriously. The first is the one Edison meant: ideas are cheap, and the work of testing, discarding and refining them is where the real cost lies. The second is one he almost certainly did not mean, but which more than a century of physiology and psychology has been building a quiet case for. Literal sweat, the kind you produce on a steep path or a treadmill, changes the brain in ways that make new ideas more likely to turn up in the first place.

This post follows both threads. It starts with where the famous ratio actually came from, because it was not born as a tidy one-to-ninety-nine split. It then visits the philosophers and scientists who did their best thinking on foot, and moves on to the experiments: what happens to creative output when people walk, what exercise does to blood flow, growth factors and the hippocampus, and why a slightly quieter frontal lobe might be exactly what a stuck problem needs. It ends where Edison started, with the unglamorous side of perspiration (routines, quotas and the habit of turning up), and with a practical playbook for combining the two kinds of sweat into something that reliably produces ideas.

Where the famous ratio really came from

The idea that genius is mostly sweat was already circulating before Edison put numbers on it. According to the meticulous detective work at Quote Investigator, a Massachusetts newspaper noted in December 1892 that the lecturer Kate Sanborn was being widely credited for calling talent “perspiration”, and grumbled that the thought was hardly new. A few months later, in a lecture titled “What is Genius?” in Riverside, California, Sanborn offered a three-part recipe of inspiration, talent and perspiration, without any memorable fractions attached. The raw material for the aphorism, in other words, was lying around in American public life waiting for someone famous enough to pick it up.

Edison picked it up in 1898, but with a different ratio. In April of that year The Ladies’ Home Journal reported that, when asked to define genius, he said it was two per cent genius and ninety-eight per cent hard work, and that he dismissed the romantic view with a characteristically gruff “Bah! Genius is not inspired. Inspiration is perspiration.” The two-to-ninety-eight version kept appearing for years afterwards, including in Scientific American in 1902 and the Chicago Tribune in 1904. The now-canonical one-to-ninety-nine split turns up first in an Idaho newspaper in May 1901, was enshrined in the 1910 biography Edison: His Life and Inventions by Frank Dyer and Thomas Martin, and was finally confirmed from Edison’s own mouth in a 1932 Harper’s memoir by his former lab chemist Martin André Rosanoff. Along the way the formula was cheerfully mutated, most memorably by an Ohio shirt shop that advertised its own secret of success in 1907 as one per cent luck, two per cent inspiration and ninety-seven per cent perspiration.

The exact numbers matter less than what Edison was arguing against. The nineteenth century loved the image of the genius as a vessel for sudden, unearned illumination, and Edison, who built laboratories that worked like factories for invention, had no patience for it. The same 1910 biography records him brushing off a colleague’s praise with a blunter formula: genius is hard work, “stick-to-it-iveness” and common sense. It is worth remembering, though, that a great deal of that perspiration was shed by the teams of machinists, chemists and assistants who ran trial after trial in his labs. The lesson of the aphorism was never that one person should grind alone. It was that ideas only become real when somebody does the slow, physical, repetitive work of testing them.

The walking thinkers

Long before anyone put a participant on a treadmill, a remarkable number of philosophers, scientists and artists organised their days around a walk. Friedrich Nietzsche made it a doctrine. In Twilight of the Idols (1889) he took aim at Flaubert’s claim that one can only think and write while seated, and answered with a one-line verdict: Nur die ergangenen Gedanken haben Werth, only thoughts reached by walking have value. As Matt Qvortrup’s short survey Philosophers on Walking in Philosophy Now points out, Nietzsche was in good company. Rousseau confessed in his last book, The Reveries of a Solitary Walker, that he could barely think at all unless he was on his feet, and Kierkegaard wrote to a friend in 1847 that he knew of no trouble so heavy that a walk could not lighten it. Thomas Hobbes, the man who described human life as nasty, brutish and short, insisted on a daily walk and lived to ninety-one.

Charles Darwin built his own walking machine. In 1846 he rented a strip of land behind Down House in Kent, planted it with hazel, alder, lime, hornbeam and birch, and laid a gravel loop around it that the family called the Sandwalk. The editors of Darwin Online note a lovely detail that most retellings skip: Darwin himself never seems to have called it his “thinking path” (he just called it “the path”), but he used it relentlessly, and his wife Emma recorded the number of circuits he managed as a kind of health barometer, with “4 times Sandwalk” meaning he was on the mend. Family recollections describe him stacking a few flints at the entrance and knocking one aside on each lap so that counting would not interrupt his thoughts. The path also fed his science directly: his observations of plants along its edge led to a short paper on the vitality of seeds in 1855. He took his last walk there on 7 March 1882, a few weeks before he died.

Ludwig van Beethoven treated walking as part of the compositional process rather than a break from it. Mason Currey, author of Daily Rituals, told WBUR that Beethoven worked at his desk until two or three in the afternoon, broke that session up with short walks outside, and then set off on a long, vigorous walk that took up most of the rest of the day, always with a pencil and music paper in his pocket. The Beethoven-Haus Bonn holds pocket sketchbook leaves from these outings; one of them carries early ideas for the Dona nobis pacem of the Missa solemnis, scribbled in a shorthand only Beethoven could fully read. Charles Dickens walked for different reasons and at stranger hours. In his essay “Night Walks”, written out of a period of insomnia and domestic turmoil in the late 1850s, he describes tramping London until dawn, and Lapham’s Quarterly notes that on at least one night he walked nearly thirty miles from his London home to his country house near Rochester, a trek that took him seven hours.

Then there is the exception that proves the rule. Immanuel Kant was so regular in his afternoon walk that, according to legend, the people of Königsberg set their clocks by it, and the route became known as the Philosopher’s Walk. But as Frédéric Gros recounts in A Philosophy of Walking, Kant could not bear to sweat. In summer he walked very slowly and stopped in the shade whenever he started to overheat, and he walked alone so that he could breathe through his nose the whole way. Kant was, in other words, the one great walking philosopher who tried to get the inspiration without the perspiration. Gros draws a different lesson from him anyway: the monotony of putting one foot in front of the other, repeated daily for decades, gives the body a simple job to do and leaves the mind free to wander, and the slow accumulation of those daily walks mirrors the slow accumulation of pages that became Kant’s enormous body of work.

What happens when you put the anecdotes on a treadmill

For most of history the link between walking and ideas rested on biography, and biography is a famously unreliable instrument. That changed in 2014, when Marily Oppezzo and Daniel Schwartz at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education published a paper with the irresistible title “Give Your Ideas Some Legs” in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Across four experiments with 176 participants, mostly students, they asked people to generate alternative uses for everyday objects (a button, say, which might become a doorknob for a doll’s house) while either sitting or walking. The conditions were deliberately joyless: in one experiment people walked at a comfortable pace on a treadmill facing a blank wall, while the comparison group sat in the same small room facing the same blank wall. According to the American Psychological Association’s summary, between 81 and 100 per cent of walkers in the different experiments produced more creative responses while walking than while sitting, and Stanford’s own report put the average gain in creative output in the treadmill experiment at around 60 per cent.

The cleverest part of the study was the controls. To check whether the boost came from fresh air and changing scenery rather than from the legs, the researchers pushed some seated participants around the same outdoor route in a wheelchair, giving them the visual flow of a walk without the walking. Those passengers did no better than people sitting indoors, while people walking on the treadmill indoors did about as well as people walking outside. The effect also lingered: participants who walked first and then sat down still outperformed people who had been sitting all along, which led Oppezzo to suggest that a walk before a brainstorming meeting may be almost as useful as a walk during it. There was a catch, though, and it is an important one. On a test that demands a single correct answer (finding the one word that links “cottage”, “Swiss” and “cake”), walkers did slightly worse than sitters. Walking seemed to loosen the mind’s grip, which is excellent for generating options and mildly unhelpful for nailing down the right one.

One charming study is not a law of nature, so it matters that the finding has broadly held up as the field has grown. In 2022 a team at the University of Graz led by Christian Rominger pooled the available evidence in a systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis in Sports Medicine – Open. Across 28 intervention studies, 115 effect sizes and 1,624 participants, physical activity improved performance on creative ideation tasks with a medium effect (Hedges’ g of 0.47), and across seven cross-sectional studies with more than 2,000 participants, more active people tended to produce better ideas (a correlation of about 0.22). The improvement showed up in both the quantity and the originality of ideas, and in both verbal and visual tasks. The authors were also candid about the weaknesses: the studies vary enormously in design, participants can never be blinded to whether they are exercising, and the intervention data showed signs of small-study effects that hint at publication bias. Even after trimming the outliers, though, a meaningful effect remained (g of about 0.39). For a field where many cognitive-enhancement claims evaporate on contact with a meta-analysis, that is a respectable result.

What sweat does inside your skull

The brain makes up roughly two per cent of body mass but burns around a fifth of the body’s energy, so anything that changes its blood supply deserves attention. For a long time physiologists assumed that cerebral blood flow was tightly self-regulated and largely indifferent to what the rest of the body was doing. A small but striking study from New Mexico Highlands University, presented at the Experimental Biology meeting in 2017, complicated that picture. Using ultrasound on the carotid arteries of 12 healthy young adults walking at a steady one metre per second, Ernest Greene’s team found that each footfall sends a pressure wave back up through the arteries that measurably increases blood flow to the brain, as described in the meeting’s press release. Running produced a bigger effect and cycling, with no foot impact at all, a smaller one. Greene noted that a brisk walker’s stride rate sits close to the heart rate, at around 120 per minute, which hints at a kind of hydraulic rhythm between legs and brain. It was a poster with a dozen participants, so it is best treated as an intriguing lead rather than a settled mechanism, but it offers a pleasingly literal reading of the phrase “thinking on your feet”.

The longer-term story involves a protein with an unglamorous name: brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF. It belongs to a family of growth factors that bind to receptors on neurons (TrkB, in BDNF’s case) and promote the survival of nerve cells, the formation of new synapses and the birth of new neurons in the hippocampus, the seahorse-shaped structure at the centre of memory. In a much-cited 2011 trial in PNAS, Kirk Erickson and colleagues randomly assigned 120 sedentary older adults either to walk around a track for 40 minutes, three days a week, or to do stretching and toning exercises. After a year the walkers’ hippocampi had grown by about 2 per cent, while those of the stretching group had shrunk by about 1.4 per cent, and the growth tracked rising levels of BDNF in the blood. The authors described it as reversing one to two years of age-related decline. It is worth knowing, however, that a published letter by Robert Coen and colleagues pointed out that both groups improved on the memory test and that the walkers did not improve more than the stretchers, so the structural change is better established than its payoff in everyday memory.

Why should a bigger, better-fed hippocampus matter for creativity rather than just for remembering where you left your keys? Because new ideas are mostly old material recombined. Neuroscientific studies of creative ideation consistently find memory systems working alongside the brain’s executive and default networks when people generate novel uses or analogies, a point the Graz meta-analysis summarises in its discussion of mechanisms. The same review lays out a plausible two-speed model. A single bout of activity shifts cerebral blood flow, BDNF and the neurotransmitters dopamine and noradrenaline within minutes, along with mood and arousal. Structural and connectivity changes, by contrast, build up only with regular training, and imaging work suggests that exercise alters activity in the precuneus, the frontoparietal network and the default mode network, all regions implicated in idea generation. That two-speed model also explains one of the meta-analysis’s clearest findings: chronic programmes lasting weeks produced roughly twice the creative benefit of single sessions. The quick walk gives you a temporary lift, while the habit slowly remodels the machinery.

The quiet frontal lobe and the wandering mind

Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1851 that the moment his legs began to move, his thoughts began to flow. Modern neuroscience offers at least two complementary explanations for why, and both of them involve the brain doing slightly less rather than more. The first is the transient hypofrontality hypothesis, proposed in 2003 by the cognitive neuroscientist Arne Dietrich, then at the American University of Beirut. Its logic is metabolic. The brain has a fixed energy budget, and sustained physical activity makes heavy demands on motor, sensory and autonomic systems, so something has to give. Dietrich argued that the first thing to be turned down is the most expensive and most recently evolved machinery, the prefrontal cortex, which handles planning, self-monitoring, working memory and the relentless inner critic. As the late sport psychologist Kate Hays explained in a Psychology Today essay, Dietrich saw this temporary dimming as the root of the runner’s high, with its timelessness, absorption in the present and loosening of analytical thought.

Transient hypofrontality remains a hypothesis rather than an established fact, and brain imaging during real exercise is notoriously difficult to do well. But it fits the behavioural data surprisingly neatly. Researchers such as Lorenza Colzato and Bernhard Hommel at Leiden have argued that convergent and divergent thinking draw on cognitive control in opposite ways. Finding the single right answer requires tight top-down control that narrows the search, whereas brainstorming benefits from loose control that lets distant associations through. Slightly relax the prefrontal grip and you would expect exactly what Oppezzo and Schwartz found on the treadmill: more and stranger ideas, and slightly worse performance on puzzles that have one correct solution. The inner editor who stops you from saying something foolish in a meeting is also the one who discards half-formed ideas before you have had a chance to look at them, and a walk seems to send that editor on a short coffee break.

The second explanation is mind wandering. In a 2012 study in Psychological Science titled “Inspired by Distraction”, Benjamin Baird, Jonathan Schooler and colleagues at UC Santa Barbara gave people an unusual-uses problem and then a 12-minute break. During the break, participants did a demanding memory task, an undemanding task, rested quietly or had no break at all. Only the undemanding task improved performance when people returned to problems they had already seen, and the improvement was associated with more mind wandering, not with more deliberate thinking about the problem. Simple activities that occupy just enough attention to stop you ruminating, but not enough to crowd out daydreaming, appear to create the best conditions for incubation, the slow off-stage processing that the psychologist Graham Wallas identified as a stage of creative thought back in 1926. Walking is close to the perfect undemanding task. It is rhythmic, largely automatic and mildly stimulating, which is exactly the monotony Frédéric Gros praised in Kant’s daily circuit. The catch, as Hays warned, is that ideas born in this loose state are as fragile as dreams and tend to evaporate unless you capture them quickly, which is why Beethoven never left the house without a pencil.

How much sweat, and what kind?

It would be convenient if the rule were simply “more sweat, more ideas”, but the evidence points to something closer to an inverted U. The clearest warning comes from a 2013 study by Lorenza Colzato and colleagues at Leiden University, published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. They tested 96 young adults, half of them athletes who had trained at least three times a week for two years and half of them people who rarely exercised, while they sat still, cycled at a comfortable pace or cycled flat out on an ergometer. Despite cheerful press coverage at the time, the paper itself reports that exercise interfered with divergent thinking in both groups, with idea flexibility lowest after the intense session. On the single-answer puzzles the groups split: hard cycling significantly impaired the non-athletes, while the athletes showed a small benefit that did not quite reach statistical significance. The authors’ interpretation is instructive. Movement that you have not automatised consumes the same limited pool of cognitive control that thinking needs, so for an unfit person a gruelling workout is just a workout, not a brainstorming session. Fitness seems to protect against that cost because a trained body runs its movements on autopilot.

A much more recent study adds a sense of timing. In 2026 Christian Rominger’s group at Graz published a paper in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, summarised by PsyPost, in which 157 young adults wore chest-mounted motion sensors for five days while a smartphone app interrupted them up to twelve times a day with a sixty-second creativity task. Instead of imposing a protocol, the researchers let the data reveal which patterns of movement preceded good ideas. Ten to twenty-five minutes of moderate activity, the intensity of brisk walking, predicted more original verbal ideas, and the association peaked roughly sixty to seventy minutes after the activity. Light pottering around was associated with slightly worse verbal creativity, vigorous exercise showed no consistent pattern and visual creativity showed no link at all. The main findings replicated in a second group of 76 people. Because the study was observational, it cannot prove that the walking caused the better ideas, but it fits remarkably well with the Stanford finding that walking leaves a residual boost after you sit back down.

Put together, the research suggests a fairly specific prescription. The sweet spot is movement that is rhythmic, moderate and familiar enough to run without supervision: brisk walking for most people, an easy spin for a regular cyclist, steady laps for a swimmer, a conversational-pace jog for a runner. If you can still talk in full sentences you are probably in the right zone. Use it before or during the open-ended, generative part of a task and save the seated, focused hours for selecting, editing and checking, since walking appears to help the first and slightly hinder the second. Above all, make it regular. In the Graz meta-analysis, programmes lasting several weeks produced an average effect more than twice as large as single sessions (a Hedges’ g of 0.89 against 0.37), which suggests that the most powerful creative intervention is not a heroic workout but a modest walk that you actually take every day.

The other perspiration: turning up

None of this rescues the lazy genius. The walking findings are about loosening a mind that already holds the raw material, and the raw material comes from the kind of perspiration Edison meant. The painter Chuck Close put it most bluntly. Asked by the artist Joe Fig in a 2006 studio interview, later published in the book Inside the Painter’s Studio, whether he had a motto, he replied: “Inspiration is for amateurs—the rest of us just show up and get to work.” As Quote Investigator documents, Close went on to explain that new possibilities grow out of the activity itself and open doors you would never find by sitting around waiting for a great idea. The sentiment is much older than Close. In 1890 Mark Twain told a Los Angeles newspaper that his rule was to do a little every day, and that a writer who waited for inspiration might get one burst every three months and accomplish almost nothing. The line has since been borrowed so often (by Philip Roth in his novel Everyman, and by Stephen King quoting Roth) that its authorship became muddled, which is itself a sign of how many working artists recognised themselves in it.

The Victorian novelist Anthony Trollope turned the principle into arithmetic. While holding down a demanding career at the Post Office, he wrote for three hours every morning before work, starting at half past five, and he describes in his Autobiography how he kept his watch in front of him and required of himself 250 words every quarter of an hour, after first spending half an hour rereading and weighing the previous day’s work. The system produced dozens of novels. When the book appeared after his death in 1883, many readers were dismayed to discover that their beloved storyteller worked like a clerk, and his reputation took a long time to recover. Today the method looks less like a confession and more like a sensible engineering solution to the problem of finishing things.

The choreographer Twyla Tharp’s version of the routine is literally sweaty. In The Creative Habit (2003) she describes waking at 5:30 every morning, putting on her workout clothes and taking a taxi to a gym on Manhattan’s Upper East Side for a two-hour session. As James Clear points out in his discussion of her method, the crucial insight is her claim that “the ritual is the cab”. The workout is not the hard part. The hard part is the moment of deciding whether to go, and once she has given the driver the address, that decision has been made. A ritual, in other words, is a device for removing choices from the fragile first minutes of the day, so that the energy that would have gone into negotiating with yourself goes into the work instead.

Haruki Murakami combines both kinds of perspiration in a single schedule. In his 2004 Paris Review interview, quoted by Open Culture, he explained that when writing a novel he rises at four, writes for five or six hours, then runs ten kilometres or swims 1,500 metres in the afternoon before reading, listening to music and going to bed at nine. He described the repetition as a kind of self-hypnosis that lets him reach a deeper state of mind, and he added that sustaining it for six months to a year demands so much stamina that physical strength is as necessary as artistic sensitivity. He took up running in the early 1980s after closing his Tokyo jazz bar to write full time, when hours at the desk had left him overweight and smoking sixty cigarettes a day. It is hard to imagine a cleaner illustration of this post’s thesis: the morning’s disciplined labour fills the tank, and the afternoon’s run gives the material room to rearrange itself before the next morning.

Seen this way, the two meanings of perspiration are not rivals but two halves of one cycle. The psychologist Graham Wallas described creative thought in 1926 as a sequence of preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. Edison’s sweat, Trollope’s watch and Tharp’s taxi belong to the first and last of those stages, where problems are loaded up and solutions are tested. Darwin’s Sandwalk, Beethoven’s afternoon tramps and Murakami’s ten kilometres belong to the middle, where the mind is given something easy to do with the body so that it can quietly get on with the hard part by itself.

A practical playbook for turning sweat into ideas

Load the problem before you leave the desk. The incubation effect in Baird’s mind-wandering study improved performance only on problems participants had already worked on, not on fresh ones, which means a walk is not a substitute for preparation but a way of digesting it. Before you head out, spend fifteen or twenty minutes immersed in the problem: read the brief, sketch the constraints, write the question you are trying to answer at the top of a page and try a few bad answers. Then stop deliberately and go. You are handing your brain a full plate and some time to chew, which is a very different proposition from wandering off and hoping something will occur to you.

Walk to generate, sit to select. The Stanford experiments found that walking boosted the production of ideas but slightly hurt performance on problems with one right answer, and the convergent-divergent distinction runs through the rest of the literature too. Structure your day accordingly. Brainstorming, outlining, naming things, imagining alternatives and looking for analogies belong on your feet. Editing, debugging, proofreading, calculating and choosing between options belong in a chair, ideally right after the walk while the residual effect is still working for you. If you have to run a meeting whose job is to produce options, consider a walking meeting, or at least a walk immediately beforehand.

Aim for brisk, not brutal. The evidence points to moderate, rhythmic, familiar movement as the sweet spot. Brisk walking for ten to twenty-five minutes is the best-supported option for most people, and the 2026 Graz data suggest the verbal payoff may peak about an hour afterwards, so a walk before lunch can sharpen an early-afternoon writing session. If you are already fit, an easy run, swim or bike ride works too, because your movement is automatic enough not to compete with your thinking. If you are not, resist the temptation to combine your hardest interval workout with your hardest creative problem; Colzato’s data suggest you will get a good workout and a worse idea. Bad weather is no excuse either. Oppezzo and Schwartz’s walkers produced their ideas on a treadmill facing a blank wall, and a 2022 trial in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience found that a brief bout of stair-climbing also improved divergent thinking.

Keep the route boring and the mind free. The value of the walk lies partly in its monotony: an undemanding task that occupies just enough attention to stop rumination while leaving room for the mind to drift. A familiar loop, like Darwin’s Sandwalk or Kant’s Philosopher’s Walk, removes navigation decisions. It is worth experimenting with leaving the podcast or audiobook at home at least some of the time. No study has tested podcasts specifically, but anything that fills your verbal channel is plausibly competing with the very mind wandering that seems to drive incubation, so treat this as a sensible experiment rather than a rule.

Carry a net for the ideas. Beethoven never walked without a pencil and music paper, and Kate Hays’s warning about transient hypofrontality applies to everyone: ideas that arrive in a loosened state evaporate quickly once the focused mind comes back online. A phone voice memo, a small notebook or a note-taking app on your watch is enough. Capture the idea in a few words the moment it appears, without stopping to evaluate it, because evaluation is the job of the seated half of your day.

Make it a ritual rather than a decision, and play the long game. Tharp’s taxi and Kant’s clockwork afternoon both work because they remove the daily negotiation about whether to go. Attach the walk to something that already happens every day, such as the end of a work block, the lunch break or the school run, so that it stops being a choice. Then give it time. The meta-analytic evidence shows that regular activity over weeks produces a much larger creative benefit than a single session, and the brain changes seen in Erickson’s trial took a year of three walks a week to appear. Treat the walk the way Trollope treated his 250 words: not as a source of instant brilliance, but as a small, dull, reliable deposit that compounds.

Inspiration, reconsidered

Edison’s ratio was meant as a rebuke to people who wait for lightning, and on that point the evidence is firmly on his side. But the century since he coined it has added a twist he would probably have enjoyed. The ninety-nine per cent is not only the grind at the workbench; part of it is the sweat of a body in motion, which turns out to be one of the most dependable ways we know of making the one per cent more likely to arrive. Even Kant, who went to great lengths to avoid breaking a sweat, walked every single day, and his slow, nose-breathing circuit of Königsberg gave him the same gift it gave Darwin and Beethoven: an hour in which the body had a simple job to do and the mind could think without supervision.

None of this makes a walk a substitute for the work, and no amount of time on a treadmill will write a novel or prove a theorem. What the evidence does suggest is that the old opposition between inspiration and perspiration was always a false one. Ideas come out of the work, as Chuck Close insisted, but they also come out of the gaps between bouts of work, and those gaps seem to be most productive when your legs are moving. If there is a single lesson to take from Darwin’s flints, Beethoven’s pencil, Trollope’s watch and Murakami’s ten kilometres, it is that both kinds of sweat are habits rather than events. Neither depends on feeling inspired, and both, practised often enough, leave inspiration very little choice but to turn up.

Sources and further reading

History and biography

Experiments and reviews

Brain and body

Routines and the working habit