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

Engineering Sleep

minjunes.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 205 posts

Re: Engineering Sleep

#91

Post by cj »

thelastparadise wrote: post #87
zkelvin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long have you been taking them? I've heard that an almost universal side effect is terrifying night paralysis on occasion. Have you experienced that yet?

Yeah, this is is true. I've been taking for 3 months now --best consistent sleep of my life, but definitely occasionally the most terrifying sleep paralysis I've ever experienced, or even heard of. I know it sounds ridiculous, but ~1-2 nights of absolute terror per week is totally worth it compared to how it used to be (getting maybe ~1 good night of sleep every couple weeks.)

Is it intended to be used daily or do you get the “only use very sparingly” advice typical of prescription sleep aids?

Re: Engineering Sleep

#92

Post by euroderf »

stared wrote: post #44

> Familial Natural Short Sleep (FNSS), a benign mutation that allows them to sleep 1-2 hours less than the recommended 7-9 hours, without experiencing the negative effects of sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation is one concern, but there’s a more subtle impact on cognitive functions (working memory, creativity, deep focus), overall health (particularly the endocrine and immune systems), and long-term health outcomes…

> I noticed a stark contrast: many of my math friends consistently slept 9–10 hours a day.

I'm curious, in order to reach this duration, did they need to do some kind of exercise at some point in the day, to gain physical fatigue ? Or could they sleep this long whilst being (I exaggerate here) couch potatoes ?

Re: Engineering Sleep

#93

Post by quotemstr »

baq wrote: post #58

I’m not convinced we need to engineer sleep in the general population. Once shorter sleep times are available to everyone, they’ll be expected and then simply assumed just as cars are right now in most of the US.

Your argument works just as well for eyeglasses. Was inventing eyeglasses a mistake?

Re: Engineering Sleep

#94

Post by vacuity »

djtango wrote: post #67
stared wrote: post #44

> Familial Natural Short Sleep (FNSS), a benign mutation that allows them to sleep 1-2 hours less than the recommended 7-9 hours, without experiencing the negative effects of sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation is one concern, but there’s a more subtle impact on cognitive functions (working memory, creativity, deep focus), overall health (particularly the endocrine and immune systems), and long-term health outcomes…

This is true, I was neighbours with one of the top mathematicians in my uni and he slept what felt like an excessive amount everyday. I definitely underperformed academically due to sleep deprivation and I probably benefited greatly during my revision period because I had a very strong sleep routine. That said, I entered my final exam having only slept probably less than two hours and that was 100% the right call bec…

Sleep deprivation affects many different things, some of which are salvageable with stimulants like caffeine, and certain functions are fairly unaffected. Exams that can be solved mostly with rote memorization are less impacted by sleep deprivation than exams that require spontaneous creativity. In any case, glad to know it went well for you!

Re: Engineering Sleep

#95

Post by carlosjobim »

londons_explore wrote: post #73

It's notable that almost every animal sleeps in some way, even organisms that are away from sunlight (ie. creatures that live underground). If you sleep 30% of the time, that's 30% of the time you aren't eating, mating, etc. Also, during sleep you are more vulnerable to predators. One would expect evolution to get rid of sleep in creatures who don't rely on sunlight cycles. So, there must be some really good evolutio…

You've got it backwards, the awake part of life is the sacrifice all living beings have to make to support the primary function of dreaming.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#96

Post by kthejoker2 »

righthand wrote: post #72

> Getting a bad night of sleep now and then is annoying, but not a health risk. However, chronic poor sleep may increase the likelihood of developing dementia, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity and even cancers of the breast, colon, ovaries and prostate. [0] [0] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi... Is it entirely possible that yes you can get 2 hours less sleep, but you're at higher r…

There's a whole section in TFA called "too good to be true?" Which calls this out but says we don't have enough data to know

Re: Engineering Sleep

#97

Post by currymj »

cj wrote: post #91
thelastparadise wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is is true. I've been taking for 3 months now --best consistent sleep of my life, but definitely occasionally the most terrifying sleep paralysis I've ever experienced, or even heard of. I know it sounds ridiculous, but ~1-2 nights of absolute terror per week is totally worth it compared to how it used to be (getting maybe ~1 good night of sleep every couple weeks.)

Is it intended to be used daily or do you get the “only use very sparingly” advice typical of prescription sleep aids?

website marketing materials for Quviviq make a big deal that it should be used daily for best results.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#98

Post by kthejoker2 »

yapyap wrote: post #56

This paper totally ignores the human aspect of sleeping, there is a habit to it. If we were able to be awake 20 hours a day we may still be miserable because of factors like the sun being down for ane even longer time while we’re awake. I feel like this is one of those inane pursuits for productivity where that doesn’t fit at all, at least not for the thinking jobs. Maybe in a dystopia big companies like amazon would…

The article is neutral on the impacts of needing less sleep. It's not proposing an increase in productivity or how to use more waking hours.

Its main raison d'etre is we're all sleep deprived so engineering less sleep may provide health and wellness benefits.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#99

Post by gavmor »

carlosjobim wrote: post #95
londons_explore wrote: post #73

It's notable that almost every animal sleeps in some way, even organisms that are away from sunlight (ie. creatures that live underground). If you sleep 30% of the time, that's 30% of the time you aren't eating, mating, etc. Also, during sleep you are more vulnerable to predators. One would expect evolution to get rid of sleep in creatures who don't rely on sunlight cycles. So, there must be some really good evolutio…

You've got it backwards, the awake part of life is the sacrifice all living beings have to make to support the primary function of dreaming.

This is a fun thought experiment, but our working definition of life is something along the lines of heritable metabolizing, which dreaming doesn't so obviously serve.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#100

Post by rsyring »

exmadscientist wrote: post #30

Hey, discussion of orexin receptor stuff! As someone with clinically-diagnosed insomnia, I've been lucky enough to/unfortunate enough to have to try the orexin receptor antagonist sleep aids for a while. As recent, on-patent drugs, they are very, very expensive ($360/month was the number marked on the receipt slip, not that that means much in the US; I certainly wasn't paying that)... and they work. They really, real…

> As recent, on-patent drugs, they are very, very expensive ($360/month...

Expensive is always relative to one's income. But, to put that number into perspective relative to another medication given for a good night's sleep:

I'm the parent of a narcoleptic. The meds to get a good night's sleep, Xyrem, are in the $15k / month range. The recently approved generics are 1/2 that.

Post reply on HN