Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 163 posts

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#61

Post by dingaling »

throwawayqdhd wrote: post #41
telesilla wrote: post #23

If there is one thing in this world I'd like to see, it's the worker's right for an afternoon nap: I really would become highly anxious if deprived long-term of my siesta. I've been lucky in most of my environments to find somewhere to close my eyes and sleep for 10-15 minutes - I just need somewhere to lie down or recline and something to block the light: if I'm tired enough sound doesn't bother me. Some people tell…

I freelanced through college and continued doing that after I graduated. Since I was working from home, I was used to taking afternoon naps. When I finally did join an office, I was surprised that afternoon napping wasn't a thing. My 20-30 minute naps completely re-energize me and drastically improve my focus. And for some reason, I have extremely vivid dreams during these naps.

I used to book 'meetings' on my calendar and sneak off to the toilet cubicles for an afternoon nap. After a while I could even sleep through the noise of Dyson hand-dryers.

It still disappoints me that napping at work is stigmatised.

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#62

Post by exodust »

JeanMarcS wrote: post #32
f_allwein wrote: post #28

> Bose just released an earbud that you can sleep with, for example Wait, what? These are 249.95$. Why not just use simple earplugs? In Germany, we have Ohropax, made from wax, which sell for less than 3€ for a set of 12: http://www.ohropax.de/en.html

Haven’t followed the link in the article but I guess those are noise canceling.

Noise masking, not cancelling. As in, you will hear waves, rivers, rain etc.

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#63

Post by scrollaway »

thesumofall wrote: post #54
scrollaway wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mention you bought a wristband. Tracking my sleep is one of those things I want to start doing. Do you have any recommendations? I don't particularly want to remember to put it on every night. I know Nokia launched a mattress pad recently ( https://health.nokia.com/gr/en/sleep ) but I'm concerned about how reliable this is if I don't sleep exactly on top of it. (Plus I don't know how this could actually tell anyt…

The easiest win for your sleep might be removing the TV from your bedroom

I wonder if you considered that my concern is still valid when replacing "watching TV" with "reading a book".

I wonder if you considered that maybe I use my bed throughout the day for non-sleep-related activities.

I wonder if you considered that "watching TV" might have been an example, and I don't actually have a TV in my bedroom.

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#65

Post by coldtea »

rdiddly wrote: post #46

Zeitgeber isn't "like totally this weird German word OMG." (Foreign languages aren't, as a rule, inherently super fucked up just because you don't speak them.) It just means "time-giver" - a cue (like the sunrise) that tells your body what time it is.

>Foreign languages aren't, as a rule, inherently super fucked up just because you don't speak them

No, but German kinda is. It almost always sounds like someone in authority is screaming at you :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBIMvXpw0t0

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#66

Post by coldtea »

jaimex2 wrote: post #64

I get along just fine on 6.

Probably missed the part of the interview where they explained that people that get less sleep become less able to tell whether they're sleep deprived or not.

Their new, less than perfect, functioning, becomes "the new normal".

(That, or you're one of the outliers with the genes for "short sleeping").

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#67

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

coldtea wrote: post #65
rdiddly wrote: post #46

Zeitgeber isn't "like totally this weird German word OMG." (Foreign languages aren't, as a rule, inherently super fucked up just because you don't speak them.) It just means "time-giver" - a cue (like the sunrise) that tells your body what time it is.

> Foreign languages aren't, as a rule, inherently super fucked up just because you don't speak them No, but German kinda is. It almost always sounds like someone in authority is screaming at you :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBIMvXpw0t0

It really doesn't. If anything German is a fairly soft, camp-sounding language. The whole shouting thing seems to be based on World War II stereotypes.

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#68

Post by coldtea »

rosstex wrote: post #4

>A professor I collaborate with at Penn State named Orfeu Buxton says that 8.5 hours of sleep is the new eight hours. In order to get a healthy eight hours of sleep, which is the amount that many people need, you need to be in bed for 8.5 hours. So, the title is misleading. It means you should lie in bed for 8.5 hours in order to actually be asleep for 8 hours. That said, this article has plenty of good insight and i…

>So, the title is misleading. It means you should lie in bed for 8.5 hours in order to actually be asleep for 8 hours.

No, the title is not misleading.

Sleep is not just the time you're actually asleep. It's the whole time that you're in bed.

If you are in bed for only 8 hours a night, do you account for the times you woke up mid-sleep and went to have a piss, for example?

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#69

Post by coldtea »

hago1234 wrote: post #34
T-Winsnes wrote: post #13

>Jobs used to be very manual, but as jobs are becoming more and more cognitive, I think caring for your cognition is going to become increasingly important for the work. That's an interesting point, it will become less about not sitting in the same position for a long period of time, and more about making sure you don't strain your brain

your muscles wont grow and your body goes kaput if you sleep insufficiently and do physical labor.

Employees didn't care about that though, as they could get another cheap hired hand to do your work went you went kaput. Plus it didn't take much clarity or muscle to do most factory, farm etc work, just tedious persistence -- so you could be overtired all the time and they would still get productive work out of you.

With mental work it's not so simple (e.g. there are bigger costs in training you and in employee churn).

Re: Eight hours a night isn’t enough, according to a leading sleep scientist

#70

Post by coldtea »

shabbyrobe wrote: post #17

I wonder if there are any studies of the effect on the quality and quantity of people's sleep and their general wellbeing since this recent surge of "sleep shaming" in the press started. It's always the same thing: "You are not sleeping in exactly this way and you should feel bad." Nope, sorry. I don't.

>It's always the same thing: "You are not sleeping in exactly this way and you should feel bad." Nope, sorry. I don't.

The article already mentions that sleep deprived people, up to a certain point at least, don't feel bad.

Their inferior performance and clarity becomes their "new normal" -- like people who have shortsightedness and don't know it, and think everybody just sees that way.

Post reply on HN