I am two people removed away from a gentleman who has a sleep disorder that means he can never sleep more than two hours, and he’s otherwise healthy. That seems to suggest if there are negative effects from lack of sleep, they aren’t incurred from practical biological necessity, but from what our brains do to enforce sleep.
Also, OP, if you actually don’t have any ill effects from 6 or so hours of sleep, it’s possible you might have a similar genetic condition.
In the comments, I don’t understand why people seem to be so swayed by the comparison of sleep deprivation to fasting or exercise. The only thing that tells you is that things that might seem harmful sometimes aren’t, which is obviously the case. It doesn’t speak at all to whether or not acute sleep deprivation is good for you no more than it speaks to whether not getting occasionally getting blitzed is good for you.
Similarly, the idea of ‘variety is good’ as a general principle of health has so many obvious exceptions, and seems to be just be based on memes about nutrition. It doesn’t seem like a principle you could use to make accurate predictions about health science.
In the comments, I don’t understand why people seem to be so swayed by the comparison of sleep deprivation to fasting or exercise. The only thing that tells you is that things that might seem harmful sometimes aren’t, which is obviously the case. It doesn’t speak at all to whether or not acute sleep deprivation is good for you no more than it speaks to whether not getting occasionally getting blitzed is good for you.
Which comments are you referring to?
And I thought it was clear enough that those analogies were meant to demonstrate that there’s no necessary connection between something feeling bad in the short term and being bad for you. There was no claim that things that feel bad in the short term are, therefore, good for you. As you point out, that would not follow. But the author never attempts to make that argument.
Elizabeth’s comment and one other that I remember but can’t find now.
Revisiting this, I dislike the analogy even more. Analogies aren’t how you do science, and I’d argue that a majority of the time, things that feel bad are bad. Exercise doesn’t even actually generally feel bad, it generally feels good. You don’t have to encourage children to run or skip or hop, you only have to do that with sedentary adults.
Also, the author says that the state of sleep research is “100% a psyop,” so I’m very sceptical of their thinking in general.
Maybe they do have legitimate points, and good ideas can come from people who think differently than the majority, but this article is full of red flags. Somebody else can sort this.
I am two people removed away from a gentleman who has a sleep disorder that means he can never sleep more than two hours, and he’s otherwise healthy. That seems to suggest if there are negative effects from lack of sleep, they aren’t incurred from practical biological necessity, but from what our brains do to enforce sleep.
Also, OP, if you actually don’t have any ill effects from 6 or so hours of sleep, it’s possible you might have a similar genetic condition.
In the comments, I don’t understand why people seem to be so swayed by the comparison of sleep deprivation to fasting or exercise. The only thing that tells you is that things that might seem harmful sometimes aren’t, which is obviously the case. It doesn’t speak at all to whether or not acute sleep deprivation is good for you no more than it speaks to whether not getting occasionally getting blitzed is good for you.
Similarly, the idea of ‘variety is good’ as a general principle of health has so many obvious exceptions, and seems to be just be based on memes about nutrition. It doesn’t seem like a principle you could use to make accurate predictions about health science.
Which comments are you referring to?
And I thought it was clear enough that those analogies were meant to demonstrate that there’s no necessary connection between something feeling bad in the short term and being bad for you. There was no claim that things that feel bad in the short term are, therefore, good for you. As you point out, that would not follow. But the author never attempts to make that argument.
Elizabeth’s comment and one other that I remember but can’t find now.
Revisiting this, I dislike the analogy even more. Analogies aren’t how you do science, and I’d argue that a majority of the time, things that feel bad are bad. Exercise doesn’t even actually generally feel bad, it generally feels good. You don’t have to encourage children to run or skip or hop, you only have to do that with sedentary adults.
Also, the author says that the state of sleep research is “100% a psyop,” so I’m very sceptical of their thinking in general.
Maybe they do have legitimate points, and good ideas can come from people who think differently than the majority, but this article is full of red flags. Somebody else can sort this.