Sleep Flushes Toxins from the Brain

The quick and dirty solution is decongestants. However, vasoconstrictors (pseudoephedrine, oxymetazoline, phenylepherine, etc.) often have a "rebound effect", i.e. when they wear off you find you're actually more congested than you were before you took the drug. In this sense they can be quite addictive. I try not to use any unless it's absolutely necessary, and only once every few days at that.

One thing that helps a little bit is Breathe Right nasal strips. They will often open up the nasal passages enough that I no longer have to struggle to breathe through my nose. If I'm only slightly congested, I use these. I don't know if the increased air flow would be enough to keep you asleep or not, but it's probably worth a try.

For the most part, I have pretty much adapted to function on a few hours' worth of sleep. I can go on a three hour nap twice a day for an indefinite length of time. I don't know if that is enough rest to fully clean up the brain, but I don't feel crappy all the time so I suppose it's good enough. It definitely works better for me than sleeping for 6 hours once a day. I typically sleep in on the weekends, but I recently saw an article claiming that isn't enough to erase slept debt accumulated during the week.

I know they have CPAP machines which have a heated humidifier, which I presume will keep your congestion under control over the course of the night and your airways open.

I'm no doctor, so go talk to yours and go see a sleep specialists to see why you are awaking in the middle of the night.

One of the side-effects of using a CPAP machine is that sinus congestion never bothers me as long as I have the device on. It provides enough pressure that my sinus are forced to remain open when turned.

So maybe look into using a CPAP machine to help you out.

As efficient as evolution is, the ability not to sleep as much may not be a huge determinant in reproduction. Just 100 years ago, people worked all day, then relaxed and slept. There was little to no demand for not sleeping at all from a survival standpoint.

The main reason people want to stay awake all night now is to work more and advance their careers. You don't need that for survival.

Further, Pharma companies have done some amazing things. While I agree that it is unlikely soon, I am confident that if humans are around in 200 years, it becomes much, much more likely.

http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1989.68.3.787?j...

I have no idea where you get 7 days from, I'm not sure its possible to stay awake for 7 days.

From the paper, "Phenotypic variability is another issue. In some patients, insomnia, one of the cardinal symptoms, was not reported."

The other half of that sentence is obviously "... but Dementia and death still occurred."

Therefore, this research demonstrates that fatal familial insomnia results in Dementia and death, but with insomnia as a secondary effect. The insomnia is a symptom, not the cause.

I'm only trying to show how tricky it is to base an argument on scientific research. There are all sorts of corner cases and gotchas. In this case, the fact that insomnia is unrelated to the Dementia and death is buried on page 8 of a 10-page article, embedded in a gigantic paragraph. A rather important point for such little treatment by the article!

Direct link to the research: http://www.gwern.net/docs/algernon/1995-rechtschaffen.pdf

The paper is titled "Sleep deprivation in the rat by the disk-over-water method." As the name implies, rats are suspended on a disk over water. They can't fall asleep without starting to drown. Thus they are kept awake.

The paper begins with, "Because short-term sleep deprivation (SD) may stimulate only sleep-promoting mechanisms, chronic SD may be required to elicit function-revealing deficits. However, the enforcement of chronic SD requires repeated, intrusive stimulation which can blur the interpretation of effects. Do they result from sleep loss or from the strong stimulation used to enforce SD? To simplify communication, we speak of the 'effects' of SD, but strictly speaking, SD studies are correlational. We apply stimuli to enforce SD and report the relationship between the ensuing sleep loss and changes in performance or physiology. However, the changes and the sleep loss could be independent responses to the stimulation. The interpretation that the changes result from sleep loss hinges on minimizing the contribu- tion of the deprivation-enforcing stimulation, which can be especially difficult when strong stimulation is used to en- force chronic SD."

There are two possibilities. Either rats being repeatedly almost-drowned doesn't contribute to death after 45 days, or it does. The paper goes on to demonstrate the steps they took to minimize the chance that almost-drowning rats resulted in death:

"Hypothermia had been suspected as a proximal cause of death [3,31,34] because all SD rats showed an eventual decline in intraperitoneal temperature (Tip); a decline to more than 1 °C below baseline in otherwise untreated SD rats has been a reliable indicator of impending death within a day or two. However, TSD rats kept warm by exogen- ous heating died nevertheless"

"A second possible cause of death is breakdown of body tissues due to catabolism, secondary to the high metabolic rate in TSD rats [3,14,31]. [...] Evidence against catabolism as a mediator of preterminal effects includes a lack of preterminal serum albumin de- cline in PSD rats [22] and the deaths of all rats in two TSD groups protected against catabolic effects, hypothy- roid rats and high-calorie diet rats. Thus tissue breakdown secondary to catabolism was not a necessary cause of death."

However, this third point is a key conflating factor:

"A third major candidate for proximal cause of death is organ failure secondary to systemic infection, as suggested by bacteremia, which Everson has observed in five of six TSD rats obviously near death [11]. We subsequently confirmed bacteremia in two additional preterminal TSD rats [20]. Very recently, we treated six TSD rats with antibiotic cocktails; five progressed to an apparently ter- minal condition nevertheless and were then killed (after 10-16 days of TSD). Neither heart blood samples, livers, kidneys, nor mesenteric lymph nodes showed aerobic bac- terial or fungal infection. The sixth rat died after 19 days; blood could not be drawn, but the other tissues were har- vested shortly thereafter and were also free of aerobic bacteria and fungi. These results indicate that microbial invasion is not a necessary cause of death in TSD rats."

If you read carefully, they begin by saying "almost-drowning rats eventually results in organ failure." They end with "microbial invasion is not a necessary cause of death."

I think it's possible that almost-drowning rats causes organ failure for reasons other than microbial infection. The fact that the rats progressed to a terminal condition even after antibiotics seems to support this hypothesis. Their organs failed anyway. I wonder if dunking them in water for a month had something to do with it, and not the sleep deprivation?

The paper seems to tiptoe around this point.