Hacker News Reader

I don’t see how this post can be seen to be nitpicking. Many of the points are that there is zero evidence to back up the authors claims, while using his scientific credentials as authority on the topic.

If the claims in this post are true, the author of “Why we Sleep” has behaved appallingly IMO.

I keep seeing this defence of Walker that amounts to, "Yeah, so what he's bloviating. What's the harm in recommending more sleep?"

But there is a lot of harm in recommending more sleep. If someone only needs 6-7 hours but keeps trying to force 8-9, they're going to have all sorts of trouble.

I personally have an issue with a drifting circadian rhythm that makes it impossible to go to sleep at the same time every day if I sleep a full 8-9 hours a night. The cumulative effects of this gives me very poor quality sleep and negatively affects my social life. Changing to sleeping only 7-8 hours addresses this, and I've been testing the cognitive effects of this change to see there aren't any.

I think Walker's overall message is important, but the numerous fabrications and massaging of data he's committed to convey that message is bad science. If you tell a lie (2/3 of people are sleep deprived, if you sleep less than 8 hours you're killing yourself) to dispel another lie (you don't need more than 6 hours sleep, keep hustling and chugging 5 coffees a day), you aren't actually making things better. You're just replacing one problem with another.

> they're going to have all sorts of trouble

1) Like what?

2) Is oversleeping even possible with normal sleeping patterns? When I wake up in the morning well-rested, I am woken up. I could spend the next six hours in bed employing all sorts of mental trickery to squeeze another few minutes of sleep, but it's not going to happen.

Yes, "oversleeping" is definitely possible. I found it to be well correlated in my N=1 to fighting off a cold or other infection.

Typically increases my 6-7h of sleep to some 10h. Unfortunately I do not have the hardware to track sleep quality.

Not sure if restriction would help or harm recovery.

Mostly agreed. I think everyone (including myself) was ready for a huge pop science book to be bad, and boosted the post based just on its title.

In defense of the post, Walker's called-out claim that "Routinely sleeping less than six or seven hours...double[s] your risk of cancer" does seem pretty out there. Even if that correlation were well-established it would be hard to interpret.

Walker wrote that 2/3rds of adults get less than the recommended 8 hours. But 8 hours aren’t recommended, 7-9 are. And that means far less than 2/3rds of people are failing to meet that. That’s a huge deal for a fundamental claim.

That's assuming the distribution within that range is uniform. The edge case would be that 1% of population being recommended 7 hours and 99% recommended 9 hours. But the recommendations of that nature are typically imprecise anyways.

> For example, the point that you linked to says that the official recommendations on sleep are "7 to 9 hours", which Walker simplified to "an average of 8 hours". I don't see how this simplification is so bad

The simplification is no bad, most people need those hours for day to day. But there was a fair point made, within the nonsense, not everyone is the same.

I, hand on heart, know people who can roll on 3-4 hours sleep over the course of 4 months, fully aware and capable, there are those who are trained for it also, so outside the natural feeling to sleep, it can be (to an extent) manipulated.

> Here it's claimed that sleep deprivation is actually a good thing, because it can be used as a temporary treatment for severe depression

As an option its a super super quick temporary solution, just because your body and mind is working on other things.

It's not a treatment at all, just a distraction, like drinking, so I agree with you there and I think its bad advise to promote such, same way as drinking..

If you have any emotional issues, talk to a professional, not HN. - And no I'm not talking to OP or anyone directly, just in general (I been there!)

> As an option its a super super quick temporary solution, just because your body and mind is working on other things.

There are no permanent solutions for depression other than long term maintenance on anti-depressants. A couple nights worth of sleep deprivations seems to be miracle cure compared to the effects and lack of efficacy of anti-depressants.

> It's not a treatment at all, just a distraction, like drinking, so I agree with you there and I think its bad advise to promote such, same way as drinking..

I fail to understand the why it is a distraction vs. a cure? Sleep deprivation cures some forms of depression temporarily without use of drugs. Why is that a distraction?

I don't know if it this blog is related but there is a stats podcast from the BBC where they look at the studies and even talk to Matt Walker [0]

at least the dying from too little sleep part is wrong(at very least wrong in the way it's presented ). And no it is not enough for the central thesis to be right to either deliberately or mistakenly lie or make up facts or quotes to undermine your story.

Sure you can do that but then it shouldn't be considered scientific

[0] More or Less: Behind the Stats: WS More or Less: Dozy Science http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0819trp

Your comparison of bulimia to sleep deprivation makes no sense. Bulimia might actually be a worthwhile cure to research if people often got poisoned without realizing it and this poisoning was a problem that affected them everyday.

Also, I didn't read his point 2 as saying sleep deprivation is good. I see it as refuting the idea that not having "enough" sleep absolutely bad.

Respectfully, who cares? In biology, nothing is an absolute. All good things have bad sides and all bad things have good sides, and that shouldn't stop us from identifying things that are generally good. Nobody giving general advice can or should be expected to cover every edge case.

Disrespectfully, for someone that harps on about the main thesis, you fail to ascertain the blog author's main point:

Matt Walker is lacking integrity. Despite his Ivy League status, despite his PhD and numerous accomplishments, and despite all his prestige and educational attainment, he's still a high-quality conman.

That's the point. He twisted facts to sell a book and abused his position of authority to mislead others for money.

It only applies as a temporary treatment for a small subset of people with a severe condition.

Oops, I didn't mean to link to an anchor! I don't see a way for me to fix that. Apologies.