3 ms·

Why Six Hours of Sleep Is as Bad as None at All

• SerLava 11y ago
  That's an incredibly misleading headline. This really needs to be changed. It's the original article's fault though.
  • deciplex 11y ago
    It's such a bizarre thing to say that I reckon they assume no one will take it at face value. Obviously, while you may underperform on six hours of sleep, with no sleep you will eventually die. They aren't equivalent.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Given the option tho, I know which one I'm taking.
• pedalpete 11y ago
  They studied 48 people. The article doesn't list how many hours of sleep these people get on average before the study. I am lucky if I get 6 hours sleep. I think I operate fine on 5. I'm not saying I don't have time for sleep. I spend hours in bed. I just don't sleep, no matter how hard I try. Last night I went to bed at 11, it probably took me 40 minutes to fall asleep. I was awake for probably 20 minutes before I resigned myself to look at the clock, it was just past 5am. This is normal for me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. My mom used to say when she would check on me in my crib as a baby, I was always awake. Nobody knows I have insomnia until I tell them. Sounds like a poor study, I'd be keen to hear others experiences.
• hashberry 11y ago
  "The group who got six hours of sleep seemed to be holding their own, until around day 10 of the study." So they were deprived of 20 hours of sleep (based on the 8 hour control group). The "no sleep" group was deprived of 16 hours of sleep. Both groups were deprived around the same number of hours of sleep. A more enlightening conclusion should be that "sleep debt" exists and is harmful, and we shouldn't feel bad sleeping in on weekends!