81–90 of 207 posts
No offense, but why was this question even asked? What are the people's needs in the first place? I saw a similar study that suggested the best way to improve mental health and economic consequences among the poor is to *drumroll give them money. Then they will create sustainable interventions that don't require source of money to improve the lives.
Looked initially like a ripe candidate for the ignobel prize. But, it seems to distinguish sleep from hours in bed and finds that less sleep than time-in-bed doesn't seem to affect them much. Wonder if the type of work was the reason for their different conclusion - assuming that the poor were involved in more physical labor kind of work while the other studies it mentions were probably not. Edit: adding the link to…
> “finds that less sleep than time-in-bed doesn't seem to affect them much” The abstract of the article doesnt say this. It finds that the intervention managed to increase their average sleep length by 27 minute from 5.5 hours to ~6 hours. Thats still way bellow the recommended length. It also finds that this intervention didn’t improve their work performance. This might be because “less sleep doesnt seem to affect t…
In the past while driving long distances, if I started getting fatigued, pulling over to a Motorway services I could fall asleep for 20 minutes and that freshened me up enough to finish any journey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does spending 8 hours in bed but only sleeping for 5.5 hours mean specifically, and how is this measured? What is the expected amount of sleep for a healthy person that spends 8 hours in bed?
> What does spending 8 hours in bed but only sleeping for 5.5 hours mean specifically It means that the TV is in the bedroom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also be a function of their jobs, which weren't specified in the abstract. While insufficient sleep might cause physical discomfort and contribute to long-term health problems, if their job weren't highly physically or mentally demanding, I suspect that most people could get through the day with negligible detriment to their short-term economic output after having a cup of coffee.
They employed 452 adults for a one-month data-entry job, which the authors say it's "a relatively cognitively-demanding task intended to be sensitive to sleep deprivation." As a side note, the study also says that short afternoon naps increased productivity.
The nights there are extremely warm too. I wonder if that's a factor in ensuring that 5.5 hours of sleep is no worse than 8?
Perhaps the lack of measurable benefits was because the total sleep was still well under what we believe humans need. Also the period of improvement was merely days. Maybe benefits take longer to begin to show.
Those in the study were low-income adults in Chennai, India who sleep only 5.5 hours per night on average despite spending 8 hours in bed. The key takeaway was: > increased nighttime sleep had no detectable effects on cognition, productivity, decision-making, or well-being, and led to small decreases in labor supply. I find the result surprising. When I get under 6 hours I see a clear drop off in performance.
- Noise pollution
- Air pollution and ventilation (PM2.5 and CO2)
- Bed comfort
- Temperature and humidity
Its possible that the home environment is so bad, that any increase in sleep yields no improvement. By contrast the workplace might be comparatively better controlled.
Getting rid of fossil-fueled cooking, power generation and transport solves some of these issues.
Those in the study were low-income adults in Chennai, India who sleep only 5.5 hours per night on average despite spending 8 hours in bed. The key takeaway was: > increased nighttime sleep had no detectable effects on cognition, productivity, decision-making, or well-being, and led to small decreases in labor supply. I find the result surprising. When I get under 6 hours I see a clear drop off in performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my country it's the same, I think it is done that way because most people jobs start at 8 or 9, there's no school bus system, only private transport for kids going to school, so this schedule gives a chance for parents to drop off their kids at school and make it to work afterwards. Personally I hated it at the time, because getting up early is not my thing, but now I appreciate the time I got to talk with my pare…
> The educational effects of school start times Delaying secondary school start times can be a cost-effective policy to improve students’ grades and test scores > The combination of changing sleep patterns in adolescence and early school start times leaves secondary school classrooms filled with sleep-deprived students. Evidence is growing that having adolescents start school later in the morning improves grades and…
Of course, most kids lived on farms, some even had chores before going to school, and early to bed, early to rise was normal.
We had a few antenna TV stations, no cable, VCRs weren't around for the average family, and of course no Internet.
We also didn't have city street lights / ambient light, street noise, the sound of neighbours.
People have gotten up early to do farm work for aeons, and go to sleep early too. In fact, to be more precise, staying up past 8 or 9pm is an urban / modern aberration.
Point is, staying up late is the problem. Nothing more.
Now of course, society has changed, so maybe change is needed. However, there is also a lot of counter literature on even TV as a sleep depriver. And now we have phone in bed, with a glowing screen, keeping a mind active.
My point? OK, change the time. However, will kids just stay up even later?
Or, as they do now, will they think "I should go to sleep now, or I will be tired tomorrow, but just one more text..."?
Those in the study were low-income adults in Chennai, India who sleep only 5.5 hours per night on average despite spending 8 hours in bed. The key takeaway was: > increased nighttime sleep had no detectable effects on cognition, productivity, decision-making, or well-being, and led to small decreases in labor supply. I find the result surprising. When I get under 6 hours I see a clear drop off in performance.
This indicates to me that they found something better to do, than this study.