5 ms·

Every single person here, if your serious about diving into the science of sleep, should read Matthew Walker's book: Why We Sleep: https://www.amazon.com/Why-We

Every single person here, if your serious about diving into the science of sleep, should read Matthew Walker's book: Why We Sleep: https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Sleep-Unlocking-Dreams/dp/1501144316 https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Sleep-Unlocking-Dreams/dp/1501... His interview on Joe Rogan is a good summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwaWilO_Pig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwaWilO_Pig He covers everything from why we sleep (obv), naps, melatonin, etc. I've just finished it and really enjoyed it.

selimthegrim 8y ago
Seconding this. His data on agents of sleep disruption/degradation of sleep quality were eye-opening.
atomical 8y ago
Joe Rogan is one of the biggest propagators of pseudoscience. It's not a good sign when a guest appears on his show. Joe usually tries to rope them into talking about his two favorite health topics: cholesterol and testosterone.
- colordrops 8y ago
  You must not listen to him recently. I've listened to maybe 15 episodes and haven't heard either of those yet. He's been a pretty level headed host. It could be that he's better than he used to be because I've only listened to recent episodes, but it's been great so far.
  - robbiep 8y ago
    I haven't listened to a lot of Joe Rogan but from what I have listened (maybe last 6-7 episodes) and wearing my Dr hat I feel he fluctuates. He seems to walk a pretty level line but then occasionally drops things that are demonstrably false. More out of ignorance than malice I believe
- kovek 8y ago
  Hi atomical, that's an interesting claim. Can you explain more why you believe that? I have listened through a couple of episodes and those made for interesting discussions.
  - astronautjones 8y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LtdUC14hY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LtdUC14hY edit: I get that he makes fun of him in later episodes, but that's only gonna pop up if you're watching youtube. for people listening on a podcast app, or with adblocking, or whatever else, they don't see the disclaimers. he's not a journalist and is rarely informed enough to challenge his guests, which totally counteracts his "open-minded" reason for having alt-right, pseudo-scienctific, snake oil salesmen, and bigoted people on his show. he's a dunce for giving his platform over to such obvious hucksters so often, which is only bolstered every time eddie bravo comes on (an idiot if there ever was one).
- qudat 8y ago
  I completely disagree, at the very least it is not intentional. He's interested in a lot of topics and explores a wide range of topics, he's not going to get everything right. What I will say is that he brings on a ton of interesting guests and they should not be judged because they participate in Joe's podcast. > It's not a good sign when a guest appears on his show Why does this matter? I find this line of reasoning corrosive and hypo-critical. Each guest should be judged on the basis of their merits, character, not who they choose to have a conversation with.
- icantdrive55 8y ago
  He needs to brush up on The Placebo Effect. (The Placebo Effecy is so important; I don't know why it isn't taught in grade school.)
- dokem 8y ago
  Eh, I've listened to hundreds of his episodes. Some are good for a laugh, some have interesting guests and I learn a thing or two, some I can't make it through. Not everything has to be a text book. What exactly is the problem? I find the unedited, uncensored, long form, 1 on 1, conversational style very appealing - Joe is just a chatter box to keep the guest talking.
  - atomical 8y ago
    I presented the problem clearly.
thisacctforreal 8y ago
I think lots of people reading hn have picked it up in recent weeks, I just finished the first two chapters myself :)
prostoalex 8y ago
Kevin Rose also did a podcast with Matthew Walker shortly after the book came out https://www.kevinrose.com/single-post/matthew-walker https://www.kevinrose.com/single-post/matthew-walker
wepple 8y ago
+1 was recommended to me a couple of weeks ago on HN. Most useful book I’ve read this year, easy.
drakonka 8y ago
I am reading this right now as a chronically sleep deprived person and it is terrifying - no less than 7 hours for me from now on.
- rofo1 8y ago
  According to the author, with 7 hours of quality sleep, you are still sleep deprived; after 24 days, you would be sleep deprived in amount equivalent to someone not sleeping 1 full night.
  - drakonka 8y ago
    Most of the "oh crap this is really bad" examples provided so far (I'm not done with the book) seem to have been for 6 hours or less, I figured 7 hours is a reasonable absolute minimum. I will aim for eight. However at this rate I'm afraid the more paranoid I get about not getting enough sleep the more difficult it becomes for me to fall asleep. I've never had issues sleeping, but this book coupled with having just moved to an apartment with a train nearby that's taking some getting used to is making me lie in bed and think about needing to sleep for longer before actually drifting off to sleep.
aoner 8y ago
Thanks. Saw this book being recommended multiple times here so just bought it :)
rofo1 8y ago
That is an excellent book. However, it doesn't contain a lot of practical advice (other than the 12 points at the end of the book, which were released already by National Sleep Association) Somewhat tangetial, check out "The Circadian Code" as well - a lot of more practical advice in this one. They actually disagree on couple of delicate points, so not sure how can one make up one's mind as to which one's correct (e.g. one thinks there are night owls , one thinks it's a myth; one thinks we need 7 hours of sleep, one thinks that less than 8+ hours of sleep is devastating). But in general, the message is the same - sleep well, try to fit into your circadian rhythm because all organs have internal clocks and being in rhythm benefits them all; some of them are interconnected, some are dependent on SCN, etc In particular, the clinical trials with TRE (Time-Restricted eating, as in putting all calories in 8-12 hour intervals daily) seem amazing. Not a single side-effect, and all health markers seem to be improving under it. One important study on mice concluded that mice that ate their high-fat, high-sugar food in 8 hour intervals (lets say, 8AM -> 4PM) compared to the control group of regular mice that had high-fat, high-sugar food all the time, ate more or less the same amount of calories daily, but the TRE-group had no increase of blood sugar or body fat. Seems too good to be true, but apparently the study has been replicated..
- tigershark 8y ago
  I don’t really think it works in the same way for humans. I have been doing it for decades and I can assure you that my body fat increases if I overeat.
  - rofo1 8y ago
    Have you been doing TRE in 8 hour intervals? There was a study on this as well, and it turns out a lot of people simply think they are doing TRE, but once they start writing down exactly what they eat and exactly when, turns out it's far away from TRE. I've always believed in the law of thermodynamics myself - counting just the calories, but I keep an open mind for now until someone can refute it. The blood sugar thing makes sense to me with what I know about melatonin suppressing the insulin - that's a fact. But the rest of the conclusion.. who knows.

selimthegrim 8y ago

Seconding this. His data on agents of sleep disruption/degradation of sleep quality were eye-opening.

atomical 8y ago

Joe Rogan is one of the biggest propagators of pseudoscience. It's not a good sign when a guest appears on his show. Joe usually tries to rope them into talking about his two favorite health topics: cholesterol and testosterone.

colordrops 8y ago
You must not listen to him recently. I've listened to maybe 15 episodes and haven't heard either of those yet. He's been a pretty level headed host. It could be that he's better than he used to be because I've only listened to recent episodes, but it's been great so far.
- robbiep 8y ago
  I haven't listened to a lot of Joe Rogan but from what I have listened (maybe last 6-7 episodes) and wearing my Dr hat I feel he fluctuates. He seems to walk a pretty level line but then occasionally drops things that are demonstrably false. More out of ignorance than malice I believe
kovek 8y ago
Hi atomical, that's an interesting claim. Can you explain more why you believe that? I have listened through a couple of episodes and those made for interesting discussions.
- astronautjones 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LtdUC14hY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LtdUC14hY edit: I get that he makes fun of him in later episodes, but that's only gonna pop up if you're watching youtube. for people listening on a podcast app, or with adblocking, or whatever else, they don't see the disclaimers. he's not a journalist and is rarely informed enough to challenge his guests, which totally counteracts his "open-minded" reason for having alt-right, pseudo-scienctific, snake oil salesmen, and bigoted people on his show. he's a dunce for giving his platform over to such obvious hucksters so often, which is only bolstered every time eddie bravo comes on (an idiot if there ever was one).
qudat 8y ago
I completely disagree, at the very least it is not intentional. He's interested in a lot of topics and explores a wide range of topics, he's not going to get everything right. What I will say is that he brings on a ton of interesting guests and they should not be judged because they participate in Joe's podcast. > It's not a good sign when a guest appears on his show Why does this matter? I find this line of reasoning corrosive and hypo-critical. Each guest should be judged on the basis of their merits, character, not who they choose to have a conversation with.
icantdrive55 8y ago
He needs to brush up on The Placebo Effect. (The Placebo Effecy is so important; I don't know why it isn't taught in grade school.)
dokem 8y ago
Eh, I've listened to hundreds of his episodes. Some are good for a laugh, some have interesting guests and I learn a thing or two, some I can't make it through. Not everything has to be a text book. What exactly is the problem? I find the unedited, uncensored, long form, 1 on 1, conversational style very appealing - Joe is just a chatter box to keep the guest talking.
- atomical 8y ago
  I presented the problem clearly.

thisacctforreal 8y ago

I think lots of people reading hn have picked it up in recent weeks, I just finished the first two chapters myself :)

prostoalex 8y ago

Kevin Rose also did a podcast with Matthew Walker shortly after the book came out https://www.kevinrose.com/single-post/matthew-walker https://www.kevinrose.com/single-post/matthew-walker

wepple 8y ago

+1 was recommended to me a couple of weeks ago on HN. Most useful book I’ve read this year, easy.

drakonka 8y ago

I am reading this right now as a chronically sleep deprived person and it is terrifying - no less than 7 hours for me from now on.

rofo1 8y ago
According to the author, with 7 hours of quality sleep, you are still sleep deprived; after 24 days, you would be sleep deprived in amount equivalent to someone not sleeping 1 full night.
- drakonka 8y ago
  Most of the "oh crap this is really bad" examples provided so far (I'm not done with the book) seem to have been for 6 hours or less, I figured 7 hours is a reasonable absolute minimum. I will aim for eight. However at this rate I'm afraid the more paranoid I get about not getting enough sleep the more difficult it becomes for me to fall asleep. I've never had issues sleeping, but this book coupled with having just moved to an apartment with a train nearby that's taking some getting used to is making me lie in bed and think about needing to sleep for longer before actually drifting off to sleep.

aoner 8y ago

Thanks. Saw this book being recommended multiple times here so just bought it :)

rofo1 8y ago

That is an excellent book. However, it doesn't contain a lot of practical advice (other than the 12 points at the end of the book, which were released already by National Sleep Association) Somewhat tangetial, check out "The Circadian Code" as well - a lot of more practical advice in this one. They actually disagree on couple of delicate points, so not sure how can one make up one's mind as to which one's correct (e.g. one thinks there are night owls , one thinks it's a myth; one thinks we need 7 hours of sleep, one thinks that less than 8+ hours of sleep is devastating). But in general, the message is the same - sleep well, try to fit into your circadian rhythm because all organs have internal clocks and being in rhythm benefits them all; some of them are interconnected, some are dependent on SCN, etc In particular, the clinical trials with TRE (Time-Restricted eating, as in putting all calories in 8-12 hour intervals daily) seem amazing. Not a single side-effect, and all health markers seem to be improving under it. One important study on mice concluded that mice that ate their high-fat, high-sugar food in 8 hour intervals (lets say, 8AM -> 4PM) compared to the control group of regular mice that had high-fat, high-sugar food all the time, ate more or less the same amount of calories daily, but the TRE-group had no increase of blood sugar or body fat. Seems too good to be true, but apparently the study has been replicated..

tigershark 8y ago
I don’t really think it works in the same way for humans. I have been doing it for decades and I can assure you that my body fat increases if I overeat.
- rofo1 8y ago
  Have you been doing TRE in 8 hour intervals? There was a study on this as well, and it turns out a lot of people simply think they are doing TRE, but once they start writing down exactly what they eat and exactly when, turns out it's far away from TRE. I've always believed in the law of thermodynamics myself - counting just the calories, but I keep an open mind for now until someone can refute it. The blood sugar thing makes sense to me with what I know about melatonin suppressing the insulin - that's a fact. But the rest of the conclusion.. who knows.