4 ms·

There are studies that show 5 hours a night leads to dangerous health consequences. 6 minimum

by gardnr 9y ago

icebraining 9y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096202/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096202/
- gardnr 9y ago
  Good point. I was accepting other studies as general guidance. I had overlooked the importance of genetics. For readers that do not click through to read the study or Wikipedia page the conclusion of the study can be summarized as: > There are a number of mutations of BHLHE41. Mutations reduce total sleep while maintaining NREM sleep and provide resistance to the effects of sleep loss. More info at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHLHE41 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHLHE41
stevesimmons 9y ago
Genetics makes a big difference... My usual routine is up at 6, leave home at 6:15, at work by 7, work til 6pm, sport from 6:30 to 9pm, home at 10pm, dinner with my partner til 11pm, then together we work/do admin/surfing/etc. Bed is ideally 1am, though usually 1:15. So long as I get 4.5 hours sleep I am fine. Less that 4 and I feel noticeably less sharp the next day. At weekends, I will sleep 1-2 hours longer. In a previous HN comment thread, people doubted I actually do this for more than short bursts. However my friends and colleagues know it is absolutely true: I started working like this when I was 20, and am now 47. In my case, the genetic connection is narcolepsy, i.e. excessive sleepiness. At night, I fall asleep in typically a minute. Sleep lab tests show I hit REM sleep in several minutes. 90 minutes is normal. So my 4.5 hours is equivalent to 6 hours for 'normal' people. For me tiredness is related to activity level, not hours awake. I deliberately go for high-pressure jobs (investment banking tech) and high-complexity active hobbies (flamenco dancing). Otherwise I would sleep all day. Just my personal perspective...

4 ms·

There are studies that show 5 hours a night leads to dangerous health consequences. 6 minimum

by gardnr 9y ago

There are studies that show 5 hours a night leads to dangerous health consequences. 6 minimum

icebraining 9y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096202/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096202/
- gardnr 9y ago
  Good point. I was accepting other studies as general guidance. I had overlooked the importance of genetics. For readers that do not click through to read the study or Wikipedia page the conclusion of the study can be summarized as: > There are a number of mutations of BHLHE41. Mutations reduce total sleep while maintaining NREM sleep and provide resistance to the effects of sleep loss. More info at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHLHE41 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHLHE41
stevesimmons 9y ago
Genetics makes a big difference... My usual routine is up at 6, leave home at 6:15, at work by 7, work til 6pm, sport from 6:30 to 9pm, home at 10pm, dinner with my partner til 11pm, then together we work/do admin/surfing/etc. Bed is ideally 1am, though usually 1:15. So long as I get 4.5 hours sleep I am fine. Less that 4 and I feel noticeably less sharp the next day. At weekends, I will sleep 1-2 hours longer. In a previous HN comment thread, people doubted I actually do this for more than short bursts. However my friends and colleagues know it is absolutely true: I started working like this when I was 20, and am now 47. In my case, the genetic connection is narcolepsy, i.e. excessive sleepiness. At night, I fall asleep in typically a minute. Sleep lab tests show I hit REM sleep in several minutes. 90 minutes is normal. So my 4.5 hours is equivalent to 6 hours for 'normal' people. For me tiredness is related to activity level, not hours awake. I deliberately go for high-pressure jobs (investment banking tech) and high-complexity active hobbies (flamenco dancing). Otherwise I would sleep all day. Just my personal perspective...