Why Seven Hours of Sleep Might Be Better Than Eight
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
I don't understand how people can honestly report stuff like this. If you are sick, you often sleep more because you are drained and tired. That's plenty to make the data look like that. Sleeping more doesn't necessarily make you sick in the first place. There's no point bringing this up because it would be silly to try to sleep less to improve your health.
People who reported they slept 6.5 to 7.4 hours had a lower mortality rate than those with shorter or longer sleep. The study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 2002, controlled for 32 health factors, including medications.
Of course controlling for confounders does not magically mean their study is perfect - there are always confounders that are either unknown or unable to be measured, particularly in retrospective/observational studies like this. But it's not nothing.
I would have been much more impressed by using sleep as a time-varying exposure, rather than a time-fixed exposure, but the study is a rather old one.
Lumping all reports from 9.5 to 16.5 hours makes me a little nervous however - that's a range from "sleeps more than average" to "sleeps the vast majority of the day, and enough that a full time job is impossible". I'd assert those are very different people.
It may be a cue, but cues themselves are not actionable. They simply mean that more research is needed until causation is found.
The dishonesty itself is astounding and I wish people had more pride in themselves than that.
It should really be titled "For some people, seven hours of sleep might be better than eight", but that's probably not eye-catching enough.
The article supports what you are saying here:
> Other experts caution against studies showing ill effects from too much sleep. Illness may cause someone to sleep or spend more time in bed, these experts say.
There's this gem of wisdom only towards the end of the article:
> "I don't think you can overdose on healthy sleep. When you get enough sleep your body will wake you up," said Safwan Badr, chief of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.
Sleeping until you naturally wake up is generally a good strategy.
That sounds nice but doesn't fit my experience at all. If I'm in a dark room I can sleep 10-12-14 hours easily.
When my body wakes me up is not at all connected to how much sleep I need. Or certainly not directly connected.
WHAT? No no this is outrageous. This doesn't sound right. It needs to be a nice round number like 8. Yeah 8 sounds good.
Also, it's not the most outrageous hypothesis that oversleeping directly causes health problems, too. The body is complicated and poorly understood.
Peak performance exercise can demand 9+ hours of sleep. I'd be reluctant to categorize sleep needs based on exercise regime.
You literally just did that.
Citation needed.
End result? I'm never tired in the mornings and I often wake up naturally before my alarm clock rings. I also don't have massive "crash and burn" effects on the weekends where I sleep for much, much longer.
Ceiling lights on, bed made: awake time.
Nightstand light on, 2 pillows propped again headboard to lay/sit up more: reading time.
Lights off, 1 pillow: sleep time.
But most of my days fall in the latter category, and if I stay up until I am tired, I end up sleeping every ~26h or so, and that ends up being troublesome quite quickly :(
Agree and I would add that an excellent way that I have found to get back to sleep (if you wake up in the middle of the night) is to do something similar. Although there are many things that say otherwise, I actually find that I can pull out the iphone, read for 30 to 40 minutes (even with the bright light) and I will fall back to sleep for the rest of the night. (In other words when laying there for 5 or 10 minutes doesn't do the trick.)
The worst case is that I do fall asleep, but wake up broken in some way: usually, it's cranial misalignment which gives me a massive headache the entire day.
People have different health conditions, different amounts of exercise per day, different ages -- all kinds of factors. It seems that coming up with one number for everyone is far too simplistic.
For me personally, I feel absolutely horrible on anything less than 9 hours. I slept 7 last night and have been groggy all morning, even with 400 mg of caffeine. Part of my problem is that I got mono last year, and ever since then I've just been groggy in general. I asked my doctor about modafinil (which is supposed to keep you awake), but he said it had a high abuse potential and recommended corticosteroids instead. Meh, I'd rather have modafinil than steroids, so I passed on the offer.
I'm at a conference all this week, and it's quite annoying being "that guy" whose head is constantly bobbing during presentations even with sufficient sleep. No amount of rest seems sufficient to eliminate my tendency to fall asleep during lectures.
Personally i've been diagnosed with narcolepsy, but it took 9-10 years of problems and my life falling apart before any doctor caught it (finally having insurance thanks to the ACA). Modafinil helps me to be a little more functional during the day, and i'm really grateful for that.
Frequent dozing, microsleeps, like you're experiencing, even after a full nights sleep, are indicative that there is an issue here worth investigating.
I still go to bed relatively early compared to most people, around 9:30-10 pm, but I get up at 6 am and feel great. Give it a try and see if it works.
When I used to live in the subtropical zone of Taiwan (the latitude of Taipei is about like the latitude of Miami, and the climate is not greatly different), there was still a fairly strongly established cultural custom of taking a nap, a siesta, after lunch. It look me a long time to get used to doing that, but it seemed to make sense, especially in the summer. Sleep patterns vary somewhat by culture and by climate, but the big influence on sleep patterns in the twenty-first century appears to be artificial indoor light, which is much brighter and much less expensive compared to average wages all over the world than it used to be. I always encourage people with sleep problems to get outdoors IN THE MORNING DAYLIGHT for moderate exercise to entrain their bodies' biological clocks. Behavior genetic research shows that the biological clock genes are deeply conserved in most animals, so that basically the same set of genes controls the biological clocks of both fruit flies and human beings. Some flies (and some humans) have gene variants that bring about problems like delayed-sleep-cycle sydrome, but essentially everyone can entrain their biological clock by controlling light exposure.
If you're just looking at correlations, it can be easy to miss hidden variables, even when attempting to control for them with statistical methods.
Compare with a well-known Standord study where athletes were asked to maximize their sleep, and then their results compared to when they got the "normal" amount of sleep. They showed a notable improvement while maximizing sleep.
If you're reading an article on sleep studies and it doesn't mention sleep debt, it's not giving the whole picture. Look up William Dement for more info.
Now just for a bit of info so it may help others... for years I had the problem of going to bed around 10pm and then lying there awake for hours. Sometimes almost to 1am. Classic insomnia, until I read a book on sleep by William Dement, it all started to make a bit more sense - I was going to bed too early for my body and not accumulating enough sleep debt...
So the solution was easy! Stay up later. Instead, I started going to bed at around 11pm. I started falling asleep easier (within the recommend 20 minutes) and didn't have the issue of insomnia any longer. However this did lead onto another issue - headaches. After years of suffering from insomnia I had found the solution but then it lead to headaches. I chose headaches. But then I A/B tested some more. I now go to sleep between 12am and 12:30am. Headaches gone. Counter-intuitive, I completely agree. But headaches begone!
So IANAD (I am not a doctor), but if you're suffering from insomnia, try staying up an hour later each night to accumulate a bit of sleep debt. And if it's working but you're then getting headaches, try staying up another hour. If you do experiment with this, shoot me an email (see my profile). I would be interested to see if it works for more people or completely backfires.
(For the curious, I get out of bed at 5:05am every morning for work. So under 5 clean hours each night, no insomnia, no headaches)
Edit: I should have put more info on William Dement, otherwise people may think he's just another fly-by-night "expert" - Dr. William C. Dement, M.D., Ph.D., the world's leading authority on sleep, sleep disorders, and the dangers of sleep deprivation. He is the director and founder of the Stanford University Sleep Disorders Clinic and Research Center, the world's first sleep disorders center.
But after over longer terms of a week or more, after returning to a normal sleep schedule, it's more complicated. Much of the 'overtired' feeling and cognitive effects come from being deprived of slow-wave sleep (SWS), which you get in the deepest phases of sleep. It's in this phase of sleep that motor skills are consolidated, and it seems to be the 'physically restorative' part of sleep. This is opposed to REM sleep, which you get in the lighter phases of sleep and is where you dream and where memories are consolidated. Unlike SWS, there are very few side effects to being deprived of REM sleep. In a typical eight-hour sleep there will be several cycles of sleep, totalling about four to five hours out of eight spent in SWS, and the remainder in REM and in transition between states.
As for sleep debt and why it doesn't really exist beyond the short term, it comes down to what sleep researchers call sleep architecture, or how the cycles and phases of sleep are arranged through a night's sleep. For example, there's typically a bias towards getting more SWS in the first half of the night, and more REM sleep in the second. Here's what a typical night's sleep looks like (Stages 3 and 4 are SWS sleep):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_architecture#mediaviewer/...
Your sleep architecture changes under sleep deprivation. If you are selectively deprived of SWS one night (e.g. by an evil sleep researcher waking you up any time you enter SWS), you will spend more of the next night in SWS to compensate. If your sleep is reduced gradually over time, your body will sacrifice REM sleep to maintain the same amount of SWS -- about four to five hours a night. As I said before, not getting much REM sleep has few side effects.
This is why you are able to sleep only five hours a night and still feel fine: your body simply adjusted to spend very little time in SWS. If I could guess, I'd say you probably have very few dreams anymore, maybe just one occasionally, shortly before waking up? I can't explain why this helped your insomnia or headaches, because I don't know much about how an insomniac differs from a typical person. But it's not to do with sleep debt.
> If I could guess, I'd say you probably have very few dreams anymore, maybe just one occasionally, shortly before waking up?
Wow, that is spot on. I've been doing under five hours of sleep for the past six months now, and I made an comment the other week to my wife that I no longer dream. Given what you said above, it agrees with what I'm experiencing.
But you're at about the limit: the number I recall is 5.5 hours of sleep being the minimum, but there's probably some individual variation there of +/- 0.5h or something.
Interesting. But I would add that because I'm already winning since it's "time awake" vs "time alive". If sleeping 15 hours a day let me live 10 more years, what's the point if most of them aren't awake :)
I will agree though that I have to be in a state where my body just can no longer stay awake before I fall asleep. I can't lay in bed. I can't read, I have to literally go until I can't any longer. I'm currently in a month or so of terrible sleep by it being broken up into 2 intervals where I wake up in the middle of the night and stay up for a few hours until my body wants to shut back down again.
Insomnia is an insufferable bitch for the most part. I will say YMMV on anything you change regarding sleep habits. I personally need to be in a massive amount of slept debt to properly fall asleep but it can easily backfire quite easily if I'm not careful.
Do you do any sports? Running or swimming for an hour (or cycling for two) works well for me.
Edit: see above - I realised that sport actually kept me awake (tossing and turning, not falling asleep within 20 minutes).
That looks like FUD from somebody who's living depends on blogging FUD. Of course, it's possible to train too hard, but this is very bad advice for the average (slightly overweight, not very active) person. If you worry about training too much, go talk to a sports physician and take a cardiac stress test. Or just run so slowly that you can breathe through your nose only.
I spend several hours a week breaking down my body by lifting extremely heavy weights at the gym each week. I don't feel good with 7 hours of sleep. My body needs to repair itself.
For many of us this will be the hardest part (and also a large source of sleep problems).
A careful read of the article indicates its from the perspective of maximization of lifespan and maximization of short term productivity. Why must they both be the same or have anything to do with each other, beyond numerological coincidence?
You're talking about a completely different metric, which is quality of life.
From personal experience in .mil my "combat effectiveness" for uncle sam probably was maximized by only being able to sleep for about three hours per night. I would not wish that hell on anyone.
There should be more to life than merely making someone else richer at the fastest rate you're capable of, or being the last guy in your cohort to die, while suffering in agony.
The stone age-like study mentioned at the end, for example, simply found that their participants slept longer when they had no access to electricity: "subjective assessments of health and functioning did not reveal any relevant changes across the study." So why 7.2 hours? Sunset at 22:00, sunrise (or excessively loud birds!) at 5:30...
Even the title seems wrong. Sleep cycles take about 90 minutes each, so if I plan to wake up after a certain amount of time, I pick a multiple of 90 minutes, i.e. neither 7 nor 8 hours.
What's the real answer, proposed by reality and this article? Find out for yourself what your sleep duration should be.
Seems to me that the real purpose of this article was to remind folks that 5 hours is generally not going to be enough sleep, and 10+ hours might be a sign something's wrong.
To add to anecdotal evidence: What's worked for me is having a set wake-up time every single day of the week, and going to bed when I'm tired. Turns out I naturally want right around 8 hours of sleep, give or take 30 minutes on a day-to-day basis.
I have a lot of information about myself that differentiates me from the aggregate (and so should most people), so this recommendation is more dangerous than it is useful.
Humans are so stupid.