2 ms·
Yeah this quote sounds like something that someone would say when they don’t actually understand the underlying system. It doesn’t follow that if you miss eigh
by fossuser 8y ago
Yeah this quote sounds like something that someone would say when they don’t actually understand the underlying system.
It doesn’t follow that if you miss eight hours of sleep you’d need 16 to catch up - maybe some processes take a standard amount of time and don’t need to be repeated, it might be more efficient when you’re already asleep to fix things in an extra two hours than an entire extra eight.
Something is fishy with the quote’s assumptions. It strikes me as something probably untrue that we’d understand with more information about what sleep is actually doing.
- glenstein 8y agoI'm glad other people are talking about this, because this part of the article really irritated me as well. Building off what you said: >It doesn’t follow that if you miss eight hours of sleep you’d need 16 to catch up It might also be that if you miss eight hours, you can never catch up 100%, you can never fully pay off the lost sleep. It would still stand to reason that you'll be better off with X amount of "catch-up" hours, such as the extra 2 a night you were suggesting, following lost sleep than if you didn't have any catch-up hours. So knocking down the straw man of "you can't fully repay your sleep balance" seems to be an equivocation that's just wasting everyone's time. I don't know that people necessarily think that exact thing. It's still probably better to sleep more after going without it, even if you don't literally gain 100% of the benefits back, and that's probably what most people mean.