4 ms·

I have a feeling that the author might have had a strong opinion on the value of sleep deprivation therapy for depression and might have benefited from it, and

by SZJX 6y ago

I have a feeling that the author might have had a strong opinion on the value of sleep deprivation therapy for depression and might have benefited from it, and that might be an important reason why he felt an obligation to rebut the book. However, those two things do not need to be contradictory after all. Acknowledging the validity of sleep deprivation therapy in some cases (maybe it does help your brain produce euphoric chemicals) does not negate the idea that in general good sleep hygiene is conducive in the long run for most people. It could well be that while your level of depression is reduced, your cognition suffers, especially if you have short sleep for a long duration of time, which is not sustainable and will lead to a rebound. I am in general also not a fan of bestselling science books going overboard with their claims (e.g. the book Grit). Though in this case I have a feeling that Guzey’s stance could be an overkill in the opposite direction. I think the general idea of the book might well still be valid despite the inevitable imperfections/exaggerations in it.

guzey 6y ago
I do not have depression and do not experience significantly notable mood changes when acutely sleep deprived. The general idea of the book is literally -- sleep 7-8 hours or you'll get some terrible disease -- is clearly not true. It is clearly true that we need sleep and that it's super important. But it's still not clear how much of it we actually need.
- onethought 6y ago
  That isn’t the general idea of the book. The general idea is to provide a breath of knowledge regarding the state of current sleep research. If you are speaking literally, the book references short sleeping of < 4, < 5, < 6 hours and describes various levels of disease and impairment. All of these diseases and impairments are reduced at > 7 and there doesn’t seem to be a huge amount of benefit at > 9. That is how the book presents the facts. You misrepresent this, and pick inconsequential “errors” that don’t change either the overall point or the validity of science, and claim false conclusions from your own opinion. It’s pretty clear how much we need (on average) > 7 <= 9. But he even points out these are averages, much like calorie recommendations. So yes some people are fine in 6ish and some need 10ish... that’s how standard deviations work.

by SZJX 6y ago

guzey 6y ago

I do not have depression and do not experience significantly notable mood changes when acutely sleep deprived. The general idea of the book is literally -- sleep 7-8 hours or you'll get some terrible disease -- is clearly not true. It is clearly true that we need sleep and that it's super important. But it's still not clear how much of it we actually need.

onethought 6y ago
That isn’t the general idea of the book. The general idea is to provide a breath of knowledge regarding the state of current sleep research. If you are speaking literally, the book references short sleeping of < 4, < 5, < 6 hours and describes various levels of disease and impairment. All of these diseases and impairments are reduced at > 7 and there doesn’t seem to be a huge amount of benefit at > 9. That is how the book presents the facts. You misrepresent this, and pick inconsequential “errors” that don’t change either the overall point or the validity of science, and claim false conclusions from your own opinion. It’s pretty clear how much we need (on average) > 7 <= 9. But he even points out these are averages, much like calorie recommendations. So yes some people are fine in 6ish and some need 10ish... that’s how standard deviations work.