3 ms·
Looked initially like a ripe candidate for the ignobel prize. But, it seems to distinguish sleep from hours in bed and finds that less sleep than time-in-bed do
by astatine 6y ago
Looked initially like a ripe candidate for the ignobel prize. But, it seems to distinguish sleep from hours in bed and finds that less sleep than time-in-bed doesn't seem to affect them much. Wonder if the type of work was the reason for their different conclusion - assuming that the poor were involved in more physical labor kind of work while the other studies it mentions were probably not.
Edit: adding the link to an article I happened to have open:
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-organizational-cost-of-insufficient-sleep https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our...
- krisoft 6y ago> “finds that less sleep than time-in-bed doesn't seem to affect them much” The abstract of the article doesnt say this. It finds that the intervention managed to increase their average sleep length by 27 minute from 5.5 hours to ~6 hours. Thats still way bellow the recommended length. It also finds that this intervention didn’t improve their work performance. This might be because “less sleep doesnt seem to affect them much”, but it might equally well be that it affects them tremendously and the 27 extra minutes were not enough to help them.
- astatine 6y agoYou are right and your explanation is more precise. The fact there was no cognitive or other change due to the 27 extra minutes implies my interpretation. It's possible that the baseline using 5.5 hours of sleep is not the right one to use and 8 hours of sleep might show a positive impact, which the extra 27 minutes is not showing.