4 ms·

I didn't cite my sources because I thought it was common knowledge (my bad). I found this after 1 search query: http://www.aappublications.org/news/2016/06/13/

I didn't cite my sources because I thought it was common knowledge (my bad). I found this after 1 search query: http://www.aappublications.org/news/2016/06/13/Sleep061316 http://www.aappublications.org/news/2016/06/13/Sleep061316 Two more in case you need some more: https://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/sleep-children#1 https://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/sleep-children#1 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-sleep-guidelines-for-babies-kids-and-teens/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-sleep-guidelines-for-babies...

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
The reason I wanted your source was to see the detail - like ranges, breadth of studies, etc.. Many people assume a lot of things that when investigated turn out to be false. Often assertions don't match their backing: for example you said " The problem with this logic is that the younger the child, the more sleep they need." However that's not what your first study says. It gives broad ranges, so it concedes that younger children can need less sleep than older children, it's not tied in a simple way to age. You perhaps meant "on average", which is quite reasonable, and having the source you based you statement on can lead one to assume you were being brief rather than errant. FWIW those sources look like you quickly googled it; and so weren't really relying on any particular sources. TL;DR your source supports my observation and contradicts your claim as written.
- meowface 8y ago
  Your observation is anecdotal, based on a sample size of two, up against what appears to be the scientific consensus.
- behringer 8y ago
  For parents wondering what the right amount is, the right amount is simply how many hours your children wants to sleep. People on a schedule just don't oversleep. The research only really matters if you have medical concerns about your child, for example, you can't get them on any schedule, they're sleepy when they seem to be getting enough sleep, or there's some other issue. Make your schedule malleable for your kids and within a few days you'll pretty much know exactly how much sleep they need.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    > how many hours your children wants to sleep For my kids the trouble is "when" they want this sleep. My oldest goes to bed "early" and rises early. My youngest could stay up until 2-3 AM and sleep until noon (as she did this summer).
    - calewis 8y ago
      This may depend on their chronotype. When we were cave people some of us evolved to stay up later and guard the camp from predators, some of us got up early to hunt. You need to try and support that where possible, but not to overindulge it. If they are staying up until 2:00am to play computer games it may just be because their brain is more sensitive to light and it's actually that that's keeping them awake.
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 8y ago
        Ah damn that explains why i'm so awake from midnight to 4 am... My chronotype is definitely not a morning one,
- option_greek 8y ago
  https://www.sleepfoundation.org/press-release/national-sleep-foundation-recommends-new-sleep-times/page/0/1 https://www.sleepfoundation.org/press-release/national-sleep... You can see both the min and max of all ranges go down with age.
- josefresco 8y ago
  Is this better? https://www.sleephealthjournal.org/article/S2352-7218(15)00015-7/fulltext https://www.sleephealthjournal.org/article/S2352-7218(15)000... I'm not sure how you could have derived your conclusion based on these results. Are you saying because ranges overlap they aren't valid or shouldn't be used as a guide?
- duck 8y ago
  You can't put a TL;DR at the end as it is pointless after somebody has read that far.
- jerf 8y ago
  We don't need science to confirm common everyday experiences, which "little kids need lots of sleep" is for a good chunk of the human race. We may need science to filter through the possible reasons why or a variety of other such things, but not the brute fact. We also don't need to run a scientific study to know that "if the kids are cranky it's likely because they are hungry or thirsty", "it is highly likely that the kid is lying about the fire-breathing goat breaking into the house and breaking the lamp", or "most kids like to eat candy". Again, plenty of interesting science to be done about the reasons for those things, but science does not require us to be that skeptical. There's a scientific reason for this, too, which is that whatever study you might be interested in conducting on these matters, "the common experience of humanity" has already run a study a billion times larger, and with more statistical power than you could dream of putting into a study. If humanity is wrong about those things, your study is just going to make some of the same errors. It is not productive to run a scientific study with orders of magnitude less statistical power than the data we already all possess. (And before you go "but what if they're wrong"... I covered that already in the term "statistical power". We are not obligated by science to pretend that nothing not produced in a study has a statistical power of zero. That's a modern perversion of the idea, and causes some serious philosophical bootstrapping problems if you take the idea seriously.)

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

The reason I wanted your source was to see the detail - like ranges, breadth of studies, etc.. Many people assume a lot of things that when investigated turn out to be false. Often assertions don't match their backing: for example you said " The problem with this logic is that the younger the child, the more sleep they need." However that's not what your first study says. It gives broad ranges, so it concedes that younger children can need less sleep than older children, it's not tied in a simple way to age. You perhaps meant "on average", which is quite reasonable, and having the source you based you statement on can lead one to assume you were being brief rather than errant. FWIW those sources look like you quickly googled it; and so weren't really relying on any particular sources. TL;DR your source supports my observation and contradicts your claim as written.

meowface 8y ago
Your observation is anecdotal, based on a sample size of two, up against what appears to be the scientific consensus.
behringer 8y ago
For parents wondering what the right amount is, the right amount is simply how many hours your children wants to sleep. People on a schedule just don't oversleep. The research only really matters if you have medical concerns about your child, for example, you can't get them on any schedule, they're sleepy when they seem to be getting enough sleep, or there's some other issue. Make your schedule malleable for your kids and within a few days you'll pretty much know exactly how much sleep they need.
- josefresco 8y ago
  > how many hours your children wants to sleep For my kids the trouble is "when" they want this sleep. My oldest goes to bed "early" and rises early. My youngest could stay up until 2-3 AM and sleep until noon (as she did this summer).
  - calewis 8y ago
    This may depend on their chronotype. When we were cave people some of us evolved to stay up later and guard the camp from predators, some of us got up early to hunt. You need to try and support that where possible, but not to overindulge it. If they are staying up until 2:00am to play computer games it may just be because their brain is more sensitive to light and it's actually that that's keeping them awake.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 8y ago
      Ah damn that explains why i'm so awake from midnight to 4 am... My chronotype is definitely not a morning one,
option_greek 8y ago
https://www.sleepfoundation.org/press-release/national-sleep-foundation-recommends-new-sleep-times/page/0/1 https://www.sleepfoundation.org/press-release/national-sleep... You can see both the min and max of all ranges go down with age.
josefresco 8y ago
Is this better? https://www.sleephealthjournal.org/article/S2352-7218(15)00015-7/fulltext https://www.sleephealthjournal.org/article/S2352-7218(15)000... I'm not sure how you could have derived your conclusion based on these results. Are you saying because ranges overlap they aren't valid or shouldn't be used as a guide?
duck 8y ago
You can't put a TL;DR at the end as it is pointless after somebody has read that far.
jerf 8y ago
We don't need science to confirm common everyday experiences, which "little kids need lots of sleep" is for a good chunk of the human race. We may need science to filter through the possible reasons why or a variety of other such things, but not the brute fact. We also don't need to run a scientific study to know that "if the kids are cranky it's likely because they are hungry or thirsty", "it is highly likely that the kid is lying about the fire-breathing goat breaking into the house and breaking the lamp", or "most kids like to eat candy". Again, plenty of interesting science to be done about the reasons for those things, but science does not require us to be that skeptical. There's a scientific reason for this, too, which is that whatever study you might be interested in conducting on these matters, "the common experience of humanity" has already run a study a billion times larger, and with more statistical power than you could dream of putting into a study. If humanity is wrong about those things, your study is just going to make some of the same errors. It is not productive to run a scientific study with orders of magnitude less statistical power than the data we already all possess. (And before you go "but what if they're wrong"... I covered that already in the term "statistical power". We are not obligated by science to pretend that nothing not produced in a study has a statistical power of zero. That's a modern perversion of the idea, and causes some serious philosophical bootstrapping problems if you take the idea seriously.)