5 ms·
> Our work showed that reducing sleep by about four hours per night, for four nights, led to an increase in eating, amounting to about 300 calories per day Is
by koala_man 5y ago
> Our work showed that reducing sleep by about four hours per night, for four nights, led to an increase in eating, amounting to about 300 calories per day
Is it just me or is this a rather extreme amount of sleep deprivation for a comparatively small caloric effect?
- dragontamer 5y ago300 calories a day is roughly +1/2 a pound per week. That actually adds up rather quickly, 2 pounds in a month, 12 pounds in 6 months, 24 pounds in a year. To get rid of that, you need to drop 600 calories off what you got used to, for the same time period. So I wouldn't underestimate the effort here.
- chrisfosterelli 5y agoFair point, but doesn't that assume that calorie burn is static? Presumably if these people are up for four hours extra they are burning more calories than they'd be if they spent equivalent time asleep.
- akiselev 5y agoIIRC average basal metabolic rate is under 100 calories an hour when awake and about 50 when asleep. All it'd take is a can of Coca Cola to wipe out the difference.
- mcherm 5y agoUsing your numbers, the base metabolic rate accounts for 2/3 of the difference; if one engages in just 100 calories of activity during 4 waking hours then 100% of the difference is matched by energy expenditures.
- dragontamer 5y agoRunning a mile is 100 calories of activity. People grossly overestimate the effects of working out to burn off calories.
- koala_man 5y agoRight, but the time I can manage with four fewer hours per night is measured in days, not months. I'd be more worried about falling asleep in traffic than gaining one pound.
- e12e 5y agoSo, that's 15% increase in calorie intake for a 25% increase in waking hours? Seems about zero sum to me?