81–90 of 257 posts
I think the research behind this news is quite weak: only 9 days and not that many participants (18 men and 18 women).
This very much depends on statistical power. If the effect size is big enough, 36 participants can be plenty.
I suspect the effect sizes of sleep deprivation are probably quite large.
The primary reason why 'catch-up sleep' is a lie, not mentioned by this article, is that on Saturday 7 am children will start jumping on your bed. At least that's been my experience. More seriously, my body seems to have adapted to shorter sleep. I used to read about famous insomniacs like Napoleon who functioned quite well on only 2 hours of sleep per night, but lately my body seems to have become unable to sleep fo…
https://shop.hatchbaby.com/pages/rest
https://www.keenglow.com/ (PLUG: I'm a stay-at-home dad and this last one is mine)
They can help with other routine stuff too, like bedtime or screen time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it may feel this way, the science strongly indicates this is not the case. The study in the linked article is one proof point. Many others are summarized in Matthew Walker’s “Why We Sleep”.
His experience is perfectly in line with the results of the study: > weekend recovery sleep had some benefits after a single week of insufficient sleep Just like 'ferros' described, if you have a single occasional week of limited sleep, making it up on the weekends DOES have benefits. The problem starts when you repeatedly sleep an inadequate number of hours during the week.
Take two weeks off, avoid alcohol and other stimulant, avoid artificial light after 8 and wake up without an alarm. You'll see how you feel after that regimen. Your body knows exactly how much sleep it needs.
But that's not compatible with the "work hard, play hard" and hustler mentality I guess. Let's see how it impacts us when we get older, I'm fairly certain that the younger you are the more abuse your body can take, it usually has lasting consequences though.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/7-scary-ways-sleep-depr...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/teen-sleep-crimes-adults_n_58...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>is the source of so much of our present issues. Citation needed. Because hyperbole is no different in meta.
>Because hyperbole is no different in meta Citation need... Oh wait, this is discussion, not an academic paper.
Sleep is fun, people who regularly lack it will tell you they're "just fine" but they've been lacking sleep for so long that the baseline they're comparing themselves to is already skewed. Take two weeks off, avoid alcohol and other stimulant, avoid artificial light after 8 and wake up without an alarm. You'll see how you feel after that regimen. Your body knows exactly how much sleep it needs. But that's not compati…
I do this once a year for one month for general health purposes.
I am no less groggy in the morning. (No alarm means I wake up at 4AM or after 11 hours.) I am no more energetic. I sleep about the same number of hours as I did otherwise. Generally speaking, I noticed no physiological changes other than (a) craving sugar and (b) losing weight (due to cutting out alcohol and related foods).
(Granted, I haven't been chronically sleep deprived for years.)
I think the research behind this news is quite weak: only 9 days and not that many participants (18 men and 18 women).
You can't judge the weakness of an experiment just based on the number of participants. Your comment might mislead others with not enough knowledge of stats I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely in this example, it doesn't matter what science concludes. If the OP feels better after a weekend of sleep, then simply they feel better? Science can't demand that they're either lying or disillusioned. I say this as someone who has a strong belief in science.
I guess I was more talking about how the default reaction wasn't "hmm, maybe this new science should cause me to reevaluate my priors". Instead it was to, within seconds/minutes, post about how this new scientific finding doesn't apply to them and they don't need to change any existing beliefs or behavior. Surely our default reaction should be to deeply question our existing beliefs when disconfirming evidence comes…
I think the research behind this news is quite weak: only 9 days and not that many participants (18 men and 18 women).
Please support your argument with numbers. 36 participants can be plenty or can be absolutely insignificant. My partner is just in the process of getting subjects for an experiment and she's trying to estimate the required number of participants. In their case 30 participants would make the experiment useless, 40-42 would make it very powerful (significant). You can't judge the weakness of an experiment just based on…
It's just publication pressure (or worse, as other commenters have hinted at).