4 ms·

Polyphasic sleep for knowledge workers has been thoroughly debunked by real science. http://www.supermemo.com/articles/polyphasic.htm http://www.supermemo.com/

Polyphasic sleep for knowledge workers has been thoroughly debunked by real science. http://www.supermemo.com/articles/polyphasic.htm http://www.supermemo.com/articles/polyphasic.htm The science has been done. The tests are clear. Polyphasic sleepers suffer performance losses in mental tasks compared to normal sleepers. In particular, it significantly impairs long-term memory coding. Charlatans like Steve Pavlina always refused to do even basic scientific testing. His results simply can't be trusted, especially since he has a massive vested interest in it being effective. If there is some reason you need to sleep less than 3 hours per day, then polyphasic is the best way to do that. However you will always have reduced performance compared to those who get a full 7 hour sleep. If you want a sleep schedule optimized for creative/intellectual performance, free-running sleep is the best available. Piotr Wozniak has plenty of science of his website showing that this is the case.

SwellJoe 17y ago
The science has been done. I'm afraid I don't see any citations in that article for studies done specifically on polyphasic sleep. I see citations for the natural length of the human day (24.2 hours), sleep deprivation effects, maximum waking time for humans, etc. But nothing but unbacked, though strongly held, assertions about polyphasic sleep. I may have missed it, but every time the article goes into discussion of polyphasic, it seems to talk around the issue when providing citations, and explicitly to the issue when it is clearly the authors opinion. It has the feel of a religious tract, rather than a scientifically sound article. I'm not saying the author is wrong. I've never had much luck with polyphasic sleep, as I mentioned above, and I'm certainly not going to argue that it's a great idea without having had any success with it myself or at least having seen good science on the matter. But, if this is the best "science" there is to offer suggesting it does not work, then I don't think I'm convinced. That said, I'm leaning towards one of the "core sleep plus naps" variants this time around rather than the 6x20 minute routine. I do enjoy sleeping. At least, I seem to, since I do it a lot, and frequently roll over and drift back to sleep in the morning. I also love a couple of cups of jasmine green tea in the morning with breakfast...it's a one to two hour ritual that makes me happy. And a polyphasic schedule would throw all of that for a loop...though I might try kicking caffeine for a while, too. I won't have an Asian market nearby from which to buy my Yamamoto tea, so I probably won't want to drink tea, anyway. I don't read Pavlina and am unfamiliar with his arguments regarding sleep, so I don't know anything about his results.
- forensic 17y ago
  Claudio Stampi tested all the various forms of reducing sleep and found polyphasic - the uberman style - to be the best out of them all. At the same time, he found that polyphasic sleep results in poorer performance compared to normal sleepers. And this was considered non-noteworthy, since obviously 2 hours of sleep is worse than 8. You can find his articles on Google Scholar. Steve Pavlina is the only person I know of who has claimed to be polyphasic for an extended period of time and claimed that there is no performance decrease. Unfortunately, Steve refused to do any scientific testing and relied entirely on his own subjective judgment. He gave it up after 6 months anyway, but still maintains it is effective. Steve's Pavlina's experience however exactly fits in with the best scientific understanding of sleep (which Wozniak perfectly elucidates). Steve Pavlina was never able to maintain the schedule without an alarm clock, which indicates that his body did not adapt and was not co-operating or behaving in a "natural" way. The theory that Steve was only getting REM is shot down by his own journals which indicate that he was getting both Delta and REM. My own experience with polyphasic also indicates that while the proportion of REM may increase, you still get delta sleep. I was fully (and rigidly) polyphasic for some weeks but never stopped having delta sleep. I also consistently showed decreased performance that could only be overcome by surges of adrenaline and autonomic excitation in general - which is easily caused when a loud alarm clock wakes you up when your body desperately desires sleep. You are tricking your body into a state of permanent fight or flight. Anyway the studies were done in the 80s that directly measured performance. But in the modern day extensive studies have been done on sleep and everything we know about sleep now shoots down all the theorizing that the polyphasics use to justify their crazy. The idea that delta wave sleep is useless has been utterly rejected because it has been shown that delta wave sleep contributes to long-term memory encoding. If you cut down on delta wave, you cut down on long-term memory. If you cut down on sleep in general, you cut down on cognitive abilities in general. This trade off may be worth it for some people, but they should be aware that it is a trade off. Magical thinking like that displayed by Steve Pavlina does not magically make you immune from the negative side effects of sleep deprivation. You get over the drowsiness with sheer strength of will and adrenaline, but the fogginess doesn't go away. (Steve considered the fogginess to be a benefit. But remember this is a guy who believes ghosts tell him how to win at blackjack.)

SwellJoe 17y ago

The science has been done. I'm afraid I don't see any citations in that article for studies done specifically on polyphasic sleep. I see citations for the natural length of the human day (24.2 hours), sleep deprivation effects, maximum waking time for humans, etc. But nothing but unbacked, though strongly held, assertions about polyphasic sleep. I may have missed it, but every time the article goes into discussion of polyphasic, it seems to talk around the issue when providing citations, and explicitly to the issue when it is clearly the authors opinion. It has the feel of a religious tract, rather than a scientifically sound article. I'm not saying the author is wrong. I've never had much luck with polyphasic sleep, as I mentioned above, and I'm certainly not going to argue that it's a great idea without having had any success with it myself or at least having seen good science on the matter. But, if this is the best "science" there is to offer suggesting it does not work, then I don't think I'm convinced. That said, I'm leaning towards one of the "core sleep plus naps" variants this time around rather than the 6x20 minute routine. I do enjoy sleeping. At least, I seem to, since I do it a lot, and frequently roll over and drift back to sleep in the morning. I also love a couple of cups of jasmine green tea in the morning with breakfast...it's a one to two hour ritual that makes me happy. And a polyphasic schedule would throw all of that for a loop...though I might try kicking caffeine for a while, too. I won't have an Asian market nearby from which to buy my Yamamoto tea, so I probably won't want to drink tea, anyway. I don't read Pavlina and am unfamiliar with his arguments regarding sleep, so I don't know anything about his results.

forensic 17y ago
Claudio Stampi tested all the various forms of reducing sleep and found polyphasic - the uberman style - to be the best out of them all. At the same time, he found that polyphasic sleep results in poorer performance compared to normal sleepers. And this was considered non-noteworthy, since obviously 2 hours of sleep is worse than 8. You can find his articles on Google Scholar. Steve Pavlina is the only person I know of who has claimed to be polyphasic for an extended period of time and claimed that there is no performance decrease. Unfortunately, Steve refused to do any scientific testing and relied entirely on his own subjective judgment. He gave it up after 6 months anyway, but still maintains it is effective. Steve's Pavlina's experience however exactly fits in with the best scientific understanding of sleep (which Wozniak perfectly elucidates). Steve Pavlina was never able to maintain the schedule without an alarm clock, which indicates that his body did not adapt and was not co-operating or behaving in a "natural" way. The theory that Steve was only getting REM is shot down by his own journals which indicate that he was getting both Delta and REM. My own experience with polyphasic also indicates that while the proportion of REM may increase, you still get delta sleep. I was fully (and rigidly) polyphasic for some weeks but never stopped having delta sleep. I also consistently showed decreased performance that could only be overcome by surges of adrenaline and autonomic excitation in general - which is easily caused when a loud alarm clock wakes you up when your body desperately desires sleep. You are tricking your body into a state of permanent fight or flight. Anyway the studies were done in the 80s that directly measured performance. But in the modern day extensive studies have been done on sleep and everything we know about sleep now shoots down all the theorizing that the polyphasics use to justify their crazy. The idea that delta wave sleep is useless has been utterly rejected because it has been shown that delta wave sleep contributes to long-term memory encoding. If you cut down on delta wave, you cut down on long-term memory. If you cut down on sleep in general, you cut down on cognitive abilities in general. This trade off may be worth it for some people, but they should be aware that it is a trade off. Magical thinking like that displayed by Steve Pavlina does not magically make you immune from the negative side effects of sleep deprivation. You get over the drowsiness with sheer strength of will and adrenaline, but the fogginess doesn't go away. (Steve considered the fogginess to be a benefit. But remember this is a guy who believes ghosts tell him how to win at blackjack.)