Ask HN: Any research on 25+h days effects on health? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Any research on 25+h days effects on health?

8 pointstsenkov8 comments

I believe many people in the startup world would be interested in this question.

What happens to your body, when you sleep 7-8h, but you extend the period of time you are awake?

I, personally, can't sleep longer than 10h, no matter how long I was awake before that. Lately, I've been experimenting with my schedule (out of necessity to meet certain deadlines, mostly) and I found that I feel relatively OK, when sleeping regular 7-8h and working longer hours, ultimately going over 24h per sleep-awake cycle.

Obviously never getting your sleep at a certain time of the day (every day you move the time you go to bed with the number of hours you extend your day with) has an effect of the quality of your sleep and ultimately you get less sleep.

So, is there any research that you know of, comparing these 2 different types of sleep deprivation:

  - sleeping less but keeping the 24h cycle duration;
  - sleeping regular amount of hours per cycle, but extending the cycle (through your awake time) to over 24h.

Pretty sure that would count as habitual sleep deprivation, and thus you'd incur brain damage on a regular basis. Plus your productivity will go straight into the dumpster after about a week or two.

As someone who's no stranger to sleep dep, I strongly advise you to avoid that course of action.

If this is how you deal with having lots of work, you might want to instead quit your job, or better yet re-negotiate your terms of employment

Sleep deprivation destroys your productivity. It's equivalent to being drunk. E.g. "Chronic restriction of sleep periods to 4 h or 6 h per night over 14 consecutive days resulted in significant cumulative, dose-dependent deficits in cognitive performance on all tasks." (https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/26/2/117/2709164).

The idea that "oh I can just can stay awake longer" might have merit. I doubt it. But the whole premise is flawed, even if it is workable.

The premise is that working longer is better. It's not. Productivity is about achieving your goals with minimal wasted effort. If you're spending your time thinking about "how can I have more hours to work" you're not thinking about the important thing: "what work am I doing that is unnecessary."

You can get order of magnitude reduction in effort by having the right idea, or the right shortcut, or the right set of priorities. Staying awake more might give you 25% more hours at the cost of massive cognitive deficit, and a completely broken set of priorities.

More on productivity and sleep:

- Productivity: https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/08/25/the-01x-programmer/

- Why your startup has you working long hours: https://codewithoutrules.com/2017/06/21/why-company-want-lon...

- References to research on long working hours and sleep deprivation: http://www.igda.org/?page=crunchsixlessons

Totally agreed.

Yet (to continue with the metaphors) telling someone dying of thirst "You should've packed more water." isn't immediately helpful.

Please assume (and that is addressed to everyone who would like to comment) there is no other way, you are in that spot and you need to get that work done. That's what my question is about.

And BTW, I can't speak for other people, but in my case being in these situations where I have more work than I can complete within regular working schedule, is more often caused by me loving my job too much, then me, being forced to work longer hours.

Thanks for the links, will check those out.

If you love your job then work sane hours. You'll do better at your job. Really.

There is almost always another way. By starting with assumption there isn't you're dramatically reducing the changes of finding it.

I agree. I underslept for a few months. I didn't realize I had a headache all along until I made quality sleep my top priority. Now I go to bed at 9/10pm everyday. If I miss that window, it's much harder to fall asleep.

Recovering from sleep deprivation also takes a long time, let's say, one week per night of work. the extra hours are not worth the overall loss of productivity and health.

Terry A. Davis of TempleOS fame has been dong something similar: awake for 32 hours, then sleep 16 hours. Judge the effects on his sanity yourself.

Some context from Wikipedia:

"Development for TempleOS began in 2003 after Davis suffered from a series of manic episodes that left him briefly hospitalized for mental health issues.[1][4] Davis is a former atheist who proclaims that he has had "communications" with God, and that God told him the operating system he built was for God's third temple."

There's a lot to be said for getting a solid eight hours in every night.

32h awake time is insane. Pun not intended. I finished a 36h stretch yesterday (30h in work) and believe me I know how bad do you feel after this. This is how I realized I can't get more than 10h of sleep, no matter the exhaustion I put myself through. This can't be sustained without serious damage to your nervous system, even for a short period of time.

BTW, he probably did 32 + 16 to keep getting sleep at the same time of the day/night.

Still, that isn't what I am talking about - this guy did not get an extra hour for work. He (metaphorically speaking) just starved himself to death before getting all the food he needs for that same period, all at once. On the 8th day... even all the water in the world is not enough...

Of course getting less sleep then needed, one way or the other, eventually will lead to the same exhaustion. But my question is - which leads there slower, so when we don't have the option and need to put those extra hours of work in - should we be staying awake a bit longer and getting the rest for a 24h day, or is it better to keep the 24h cycle, OR maybe there is no difference at all?

It's "should I shoot myself in the leg or the head" type of question, I know, haha, but while those are the only options, perhaps it's a bit better to aim at those toes? :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com