Azure Jane Lunatic (Azz) đș (
azurelunatic) wrote2024-03-11 01:50 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
Some is better than None
I will not be linking the clickbait article that has inspired this entry, and the individual responsible for the clickbait headline should have their journalistic license taken away, shredded, shot, and burnt.
The claim of the headline is that six hours of sleep is the same as None sleep.
Deep in the article, the point is finally addressed: after two weeks of inadequate sleep, the six hours of sleep contingent (having racked up 28 or so hours of sleep debt apiece) finally started performing as badly as the people who had been up for two days straight. The thing that alarmed the writer the worst was that the people who had two days awake were pretty aware that they were not doing great, but the 28 hour cohort thought they were doing fine. (They were not.)
Six hours is not enough sleep. It is not enough sleep to stay functional in the long term. But it is still better than no sleep. (Fatal insomnia is a prion disease, but inadequate sleep and driving is still extremely dangerous.) Even a little rest can help, as long as you're not awakened in the middle of a sleep cycle.
(I throw legos at the no-naps contingent of institutional sleep police. Naps are our body's way of making sure that we GET ENOUGH FUCKING REST and you can sit on those legos.)
The claim of the headline is that six hours of sleep is the same as None sleep.
Deep in the article, the point is finally addressed: after two weeks of inadequate sleep, the six hours of sleep contingent (having racked up 28 or so hours of sleep debt apiece) finally started performing as badly as the people who had been up for two days straight. The thing that alarmed the writer the worst was that the people who had two days awake were pretty aware that they were not doing great, but the 28 hour cohort thought they were doing fine. (They were not.)
Six hours is not enough sleep. It is not enough sleep to stay functional in the long term. But it is still better than no sleep. (Fatal insomnia is a prion disease, but inadequate sleep and driving is still extremely dangerous.) Even a little rest can help, as long as you're not awakened in the middle of a sleep cycle.
(I throw legos at the no-naps contingent of institutional sleep police. Naps are our body's way of making sure that we GET ENOUGH FUCKING REST and you can sit on those legos.)
no subject
+1
âNeeding to sleepâ is stigmatized as
I blame the allure of cocaine
Re: +1
Re: +1
That's so wrong! I am sorry their normate bigotry limited your life path.
I seem to have a limited amount I can sleep in a day. If I nap, my night-time rest is docked by the length of that daytime snooze.
no subject
When I was a teenager, I functioned fine on seven hours of sleep, and tended to consider seven hours as about right for me. But as I've aged, I need even less sleep. Honestly, I think if I got a solid six hours of sleep a night, every night, I think I'd be about perfect.
My dad was (and presumably still is) much the same -- he didn't sleep much at night but napped during the day a fair bit.
no subject
Nap addict.
no subject
It is almost! as though! as with food! the "first get enough, then worry about the fine tuning". YES having a regular sleep cycle genuinely is as best we can tell tediously very good for most people, BUT ALSO IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A REGULAR SLEEP CYCLE THAT INVOLVES NAPS but also, crucially, first you get enough.
no subject