top | item 11283566

Why Six Hours of Sleep Is as Bad as None at All

14 points| randomname2 | 10 years ago |fastcompany.com

6 comments

order
[+] hyperpape|10 years ago|reply
Interesting study, bad title. The claim is that getting 6 hours per night is as bad as not sleeping for two nights.

The other interesting aspect is that the people who got six hours night after night underreported their fatigue. That fits with my experience. Several years ago, I started missing out on a lot of sleep (young kids, trying to learn programming while working a full time job). When I finally started sleeping enough, I felt like I was fully awake for the first time in years. Before, I would notice I was truly exhausted, and sleep more for a day or two, but I was never actually catching up, just taking the worst of the edge off.

[+] mbcrower|10 years ago|reply
I agree the title is misleading. I sleep 6-7 hours most nights, but I never go 2 weeks straight on that because I inevitably end up "catching up" at some point.
[+] snsn2828|10 years ago|reply
What about people that naturally only need 6 hours of sleep? Are they tricking themselves to believing that?

Can you condition yourself to only need 6 hours of sleep and get a full nights rest?

[+] Grishnakh|10 years ago|reply
Yes, you can be fully rested with much less than that actually, according to polyphasic sleep theory.

The problem is that you have to sleep multiple times in a 24-hour cycle. The simplest version is the biphasic pattern or "siesta", where you take a nap in the middle of the day, as was traditionally done in Spanish cultures. The more extreme versions involve brief sleep periods evenly spaced out during the 24-hour cycle.

As should be obvious, the problem with this is that our culture doesn't permit it. Good luck finding a job that'll let you take a 1-hour nap in the middle of the workday (in addition to your lunchtime).