
It’s probably a myth that we’re sleeping less than we used to - prostoalex
http://qz.com/491414/its-actually-a-myth-that-were-not-getting-enough-sleep/
======
waxman
A recently published controlled study found that in two groups who were
deliberately exposed to the cold virus then forced to sleep less than 6 hours
a night or more than 8 hours, the group that slept less than 6 hours caught
colds at a 4.5X greater rate, which was independent of previous immune system
strength, age, socio-economic, and every other variable they tracked.

The experimental design seems to be pretty solid, and once these findings are
replicated, this is pretty strong evidence that "we're not getting enough
sleep."

[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/short-sleepers-
may-...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/short-sleepers-may-catch-
more-colds/)

~~~
obastani
The claim made by the article isn't that getting < 8 hours of sleep is bad
(they agree it is), it's that most people get 8 hours of sleep; more
specifically, that many surveys overestimate the number of people who get too
little sleep.

------
afterburner
The headline is misleading; the article is talking about research that shows
we're sleeping as much as we used to, the "myth" being that we're sleeping
less than we used to. We still might not be getting enough sleep, it's just
now it seems that might have always been the case.

~~~
jerf
If we have "always" been getting "not enough" sleep, then for sufficiently
large definitions of "always" I begin to question the "not enough".

The twentieth century saw a lot of poorly-informed scientists second-guessing
human body mechanims that have been keeping us alive for millions upon
millions of years, on the basis of "studies" that constituted tiny, tiny,
tiny, _tiny_ samplings of a horrifically n-dimensional parameter space. I
don't think the twentieth century scientists came out of it looking too good
even now in 2015 and I expect them to continue to look worse as we learn more.
This seems as likely a place as any for them to end up having been wrong.

~~~
basch
enough probably means optimal not baseline to function adequately

------
matthewrhoden1
When I was single I was really into fitness and as a result also made sure I
got plenty of sleep. I would go to be really early to ensure I got the full
8hrs. Once I caught up on my sleep something funny started to happen. I would
only sleep about 4 hours, then wake up for 2 hrs in the middle of the night.
Then go back to sleep for a few more. Net result being only about 6 hrs of
sleep.

Anymore, I'm of the opinion that your body knows how much sleep you need. That
being on a schedule is almost more important than the specific hourly amount.

~~~
icelancer
>I would only sleep about 4 hours, then wake up for 2 hrs in the middle of the
night.

This happens to me 100% of the time when I "go to bed early" and it ruins my
day unless I seriously force myself to fall back asleep. I understand this is
a "natural" pattern from years past, but it's incredible disruptive. I'm back
to setting an alarm and jolting myself awake, which doesn't sound like the
best way to do things, but oh well.

~~~
ashark
I have a lot of trouble falling back asleep after something like that when I
know an alarm is set. The result is that I have to stay up later than I'd like
to make sure I'm so tired that I am _very_ unlikely to wake up at all before
the alarm goes off, getting 6-7 hours most nights, when I'd love 8-9 but can't
risk waking up at 2:00 (because I wasn't falling-over tired when I went to
bed) and not being able to fall back asleep due to alarm-anxiety.

My wife and I each take a separate sleep-in day on the weekends (someone has
to get up with the kids) to make up for stuff like this. I'd rather not have
one since it cuts heavily in to nice daylight hours, but as it is it's do the
12-hour-sleep make-up thing on the weekend or risk having a 3-hours-of-sleep
night on a Tuesday because I woke up and couldn't go back to sleep.

The only solution I can come up with is "get rich enough not to have an
alarm". :-/

------
kyleblarson
If I get less than 8 hours of sleep I feel like crap. That's all the evidence
I need.

------
NumberCruncher
It´s probably a myth that a systematic review of X studies, each involving 35
participants on average is better than throwing a d100.

------
gwern
> Instead of using self-reported data, he wanted objective data—that which is
> recorded using sleep-monitoring instruments or by observers as participants
> slept in a lab. Youngstedt’s and his colleagues’ systematic review,
> published in Sleep Medicine Reviews, took into consideration 168 studies
> with objective data conducted between 1960 and 2013—involving more than
> 6,000 participants (understandably a much smaller set than the self-reported
> surveys) across 15 countries. It too reveals that the total sleep time
> hasn’t changed much in that period.

Why would you consider this as any evidence about whether the general
population sleeps more or less? When you participate in a study, you are not
making your usual decisions; you're cooperating and will sleep as long as you
can or they let you, and there doesn't seem like much reason to expect sleep
lab technicians to have gotten more impatient over the years and start rushing
in to wake up subjects at hour 7.

~~~
skav
Good objection, but the article also mentions other sources like time use
diaries.

------
jwmoz
I always need more sleep.

~~~
agentultra
Me too. Father of two young ones.

~~~
api
Child = startup with a lot of overnight support calls.

~~~
richmarr
child + startup = zzzzzz... huh? did you say something?

~~~
api
I'm there.

------
quinncuatro
I'm not so sure this is accurate. Speaking entirely anecdotally here, as I
haven't done a lot of research on sleep trends. But ever since I saw
Inception, I got into lucid dreaming. I only got lucid a handful of times over
the years, but in trying to do so I changed my sleeping habits. I get about
six hours of sleep every day, but I'm at a point where I fall into REM the
minute I'm out. It's supposed to take an hour to fall into the cycle, but I've
had cat naps that last about fifteen minutes with a full on dream. Since REM
is the part of the cycle where your body rests the most, I feel that if I fall
into the cycle sooner rather than later, I can safely shave a few hours off my
sleeping time. Just my $.02

~~~
akshatrathi
Thanks for your $0.02. I'm the author of the piece, and I know what you are
talking about. I tried to cheat sleep for a year by sleeping approx 4.5 hours
per day. More here: [http://qz.com/430415](http://qz.com/430415) (slept 3.5
hours at night and took 3-4 naps of 20 mins in the day)

My experience was the same. I used to fall in REM very quickly, many times in
the 20 min naps. Here I say REM but really I mean dreams and I'm taking dreams
to be a proxy for REM.

~~~
brayton
> "Though a tiny fraction of people can get away with much less."

Why is that?

~~~
Confiks
This article describes such a person; might shed some light:

[http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/what-its-like-to-
need-h...](http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/what-its-like-to-need-hardly-
any-sleep.html)

------
joshdance
I don't know why they don't just use the data that is already being collected
- [https://jawbone.com/blog/circadian-
rhythm/](https://jawbone.com/blog/circadian-rhythm/)

~~~
dsjoerg
That is very cool however this data set has some serious selection bias to
contend with.

------
lazyant
they made a study with an NBA team where players used to get about 5 hours of
sleep (lots of traveling) and they when to sleep about 7-8 hours and their
metrics (free shooting etc) improved quite a bit

~~~
pd1
Source? That sounds intersting

~~~
lazyant
found it, it was Collegiate basketball (Cardinals) not NBA:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119836/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119836/)

~~~
pd1
Still the same concept, although I'd guess the NBA players would have less
variance in performance. Thanks!

