Hacker News Reader

Comment by SeanDav | Hacker News Reader

How is an expert on sleep saying something MIGHT be true now being classed as pseudo science and not to be taken seriously?

Your rebuttal of this "pseudo science" is that you perceive that you personally need 8.5 hours sleep - now that smacks of pseudo science to me.

People are very different. Just because 1 person in a 1000 (or 100 or million or whatever) benefits from 8.5 hours sleep does not necessarily mean that in general one might get more benefit from less than 8.5 hours sleep.

This is not hard science, I doubt it could ever be, but that does not mean it is pseudo science and certainly should not be dismissed out of hand because it does not fit into the model of the world that you have personally.

View on HN

Because of statements like:

> people who sleep between 6.5 hr. and 7.5 hr. a night, live the longest, are happier and most productive

O RLY? Time for another basic primer on causation vs. correlation.

That was the result of a study (in other words, science). Where is your proof that the study is invalid?

Note that I am not saying that the result is fact, just that there is science to indicate that things are not as simple as they may appear to people that dismiss the whole thing as "pseudo science".

>>That was the result of a study (in other words, science). Where is your proof that the study is invalid?

I'm afraid "science" is quite a bit more complicated than you seem to believe.

One of its most basic tenets is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One study is not enough to prove the assertion that people who sleep for 6.5 to 7.5 hours a night are the happiest.

That was a statement that really stuck out. I cannot believe these 'conclusions' from just one study.

Why? What you copy-pasted makes no claim of causation (e.g., it does not say anything like "if you sleep 6.5 to 7.5 hours a night, you will be happier"); you just chose to read it that way.

If people are very different, isn't the conclusion there to figure out how much sleep you need to function effectively and ignore all the people who tell you how much you should need to function effectively? This is something you can measure and experiment with directly, and your results will be a lot more personally relevant than a blog post on the Internet.

I need to point this out -- the question of how much sleep I need to function effectively, and how my functioning varies with differing amounts of sleep, is definitely something I can measure.

It is not at all something I can experiment with directly, unless you believe that sleep under the effects of sleep-inducing drugs is equivalent to natural sleep (it isn't, in my experience).

You can shorten the amount of sleep or wake up at different points in your sleep cycle - just use an alarm clock. You'll probably want to separate out these effects and control for each independently - I find I feel much more rested with 6.5 hours of sleep than with 7 (and perform better on tasks), because the latter interrupts me in the middle of a sleep cycle.

You can't really lengthen your natural sleep cycle without conflating things with drugs, but I've found that personally I can sleep up to 11 hours if I let myself (although there may be another conflating factor as I tend to sleep more when I'm learning something hard).

This article is worse than pseudo science. It is just a bunch of inaccuracies. One thing that caught my attention is how he quotes a study out of context:

"The sleep deprived person can in fact deliver the exact same results as someone who isn’t sleep deprived in any exercise. That is, given it is a non repeated exercise and they give it their best shot."

This phenomenon is called neuron tiring and he makes it sound like someone only carries out wrong judgements sparingly whereas it is more like when person is exhausted from running. The person's legs don't turn off, they are tired. They are still useable and could probably sprint for a very short distance but will eventually start shaking. If the person tries to sprint again, he can but still not for long. This is what being tired or sleep deprived does. You can go for very short sprints but you fail at endurance.

And the 8 hours thing is a mean and it is not pseudo science. Google actual medical sources and see for yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com