Is Lack of Sleep a Public Health Crisis? (washingtonpost.com) 109
According to The Washington Post, "a growing number of scientists, not normally known for being advocates, are bringing evangelical zeal to the message that lack of sleep is an escalating public health crisis that deserves as much attention as the obesity epidemic." "We're competing against moneyed interests, with technology and gaming and all that. It's so addictive and so hard to compete with," said Orfeu Buxton, a sleep researcher at Pennsylvania State University. "We've had this natural experiment with the Internet that swamped everything else." From the report: The sleep research community, formerly balkanized into separate sleep disorders such as insomnia and sleep apnea, has begun to coalesce around the concept of "sleep health" -- which for most adults means getting at least seven hours a night. But time in the sack has been steadily decreasing. In 1942, a Gallup poll found that adults slept an average of 7.9 hours per night. In 2013, the average adult had sheared more than an hour off that number. In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a third of adults fail to get the recommended seven hours. In the blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms, humans have radically altered a fundamental biological necessity -- with repercussions we are still only beginning to understand.
For years, animal studies have shown that learning activities are reactivated during sleep, a critical part of how lasting memories are formed. More recently, Princeton postdoctoral researcher Monika Schonauer asked 32 people to sleep in the lab after they had been asked to memorize 100 pictures of houses or faces. By analyzing their patterns of electrical brain activity, she found she could effectively read their minds, predicting which images they had been studying while awake -- because they were replaying them. [...] Sleep problems have long been recognized as a symptom of psychiatric and neurological disorders, ranging from depression to Alzheimer's. But increasingly, researchers are exploring the two-way street between disrupted sleep and disease. And researchers who started out interested in cognitive functions such as memory or brain development are finding themselves focused on sleep because it is so fundamental.
For years, animal studies have shown that learning activities are reactivated during sleep, a critical part of how lasting memories are formed. More recently, Princeton postdoctoral researcher Monika Schonauer asked 32 people to sleep in the lab after they had been asked to memorize 100 pictures of houses or faces. By analyzing their patterns of electrical brain activity, she found she could effectively read their minds, predicting which images they had been studying while awake -- because they were replaying them. [...] Sleep problems have long been recognized as a symptom of psychiatric and neurological disorders, ranging from depression to Alzheimer's. But increasingly, researchers are exploring the two-way street between disrupted sleep and disease. And researchers who started out interested in cognitive functions such as memory or brain development are finding themselves focused on sleep because it is so fundamental.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, excessive microwave radiation causes lack of sleep. So, if you have a cell phone in your bedroom, cordless DECT phone by your bed, or a computer router nearby, you are being dosed all night while you try to sleep. Also possible is that a cell phone antenna is within a block or two -- that is close enough to cause problems.
Great question.
Re: (Score:2)
So you sleep standing up at exactly midnight, and flat on your back with your feet facing east at 6am?
Re: (Score:2)
So you sleep standing up at exactly midnight, and flat on your back with your feet facing east at 6am?
Don't forget the magnet mattress.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of things that don't make sense -
"predicting which images they had been studying while awake -- because they were replaying them"
How does that work? Do the images create the same patterns in everyone's brains? Or are they saying that if they record what patterns each image makes in your brain once, then if you study that image any other day you'll be repeating the brain pattern in your sleep and they can recognize it? And if you study the same images every day what are we learning about memory and retention? Just confused by that part of the summary.
I'm pretty skeptical as well. If as stated, this woman can read the minds of these subjects in this simple manner - that would be the real discovery.
But since I get 5 hours of sleep a night, feel well rested, and haven't used an alarm but maybe a few times in the last 50 years, the Evangelist Scientists apparently think I have a psychiatric and/or neurological disorder, so we have to take my observations with a grain of salt.
So smoke some pot (Score:2)
Smoke some pot, drink less, chill out, sleep for 9hrs easy.
Stupid govt and people who thinks pot is bad, "just do it"
No amount of RF can stop you sleeping after a few spliffs.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Smoke some pot, drink less, chill out, sleep for 9hrs easy. Stupid govt and people who thinks pot is bad, "just do it""
Smoking anything is "bad" if you define unhealthy as "bad". In which case it should be eaten or vaped.
It is also "bad" if you define endangering others as "bad". In which case it should be used on your own time and in a way not endangering others when in an altered state.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee Wizz that sounds really sciencecy and stuff.
I figured having my Cell phone next to me, is a distraction where when I wake up in the middle of the night other then just turning around and going back to sleep. I feel the need to check my email, get caught up on my daily comic strips, see the news alerts then not being able to get to sleep because other then a minute shifting to get comfortable, I had actually done a lot of activities that woke me up further. Then before I go to sleep I will watch that on
So, what's the baseline? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's all very interesting, but was 1942 a typical year, comparable to, say, the norm for the last five centuries?
Mind you, I grew up at a time when the "norm" (theoretically) was eight hours a night. And I generally get seven to eight these days. Or six, if the weather is bad and my dog is in panic m
Re: (Score:1)
Is it Fruitcake or Fruit Cage? Learn your memes!
https://genius.com/Peter-gabri... [genius.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:So, what's the baseline? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. There were a lot of explosions keeping people up throughout Europe, Asia and the Pacific. Most factories were working three shifts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I generally get seven to eight these days. Or six, if the weather is bad and my dog is in panic mode due to thunder.
There's a pretty good solution for this, it worked for our dogs: Anti-anxiety shirt for dogs [thundershirt.com]
ahemm... the new Church (Score:4, Insightful)
"a growing number of scientists"..."are bringing evangelical zeal to the message"
I think the new church of science has become well established. Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.
I am a big fan of science, but it has become more of a religion of late than the search for truth about our world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, it's a real shame that science progresses one funeral at a time [Max Planck]. First coffee was bad, then its good, eggs were bad then they were good, milk was bad then good and now bad again depending on who you ask, fat is bad and here recently it is becoming good again. The only minds that are made up about this are the unmade minds.
Science definitely should have the ear of the people, but most of the time the people never check out who is signing the checks. Most of the time, most of the science
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yea, it's a real shame that science progresses one funeral at a time [Max Planck]. First coffee was bad, then its good, eggs were bad then they were good, milk was bad then good and now bad again depending on who you ask, fat is bad and here recently it is becoming good again. The only minds that are made up about this are the unmade minds.
Science definitely should have the ear of the people, but most of the time the people never check out who is signing the checks. Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong. Of course the benefit of decent science is that it will correct for this and change how it researches and its claims when new evidence is presented or something new is learned that might be helpful to learn the truth. But today, its not that anymore, it's all confirmation bias. Evidence that does not support the pursuit is omitted or assailed when presented by the opposition. The opposition... constantly treating people that are looking for the truth as well as though they are opposition. How quaint!
I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science.
I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer".
Even if SCIENCE did make statements like that, I currently live in a country where a lot of people make arguments about how the world is flat, the earth was created in les
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science."
No, talking about the real science. Sure journalism is also to blame but that is a red herring or straw-man argument. Just stick to the science parts keep the journalism out of it. You are pulling it in because you already know you are wrong and hate being called out on it.
"I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad",
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, evaluating all research by "who is signing the checks" is politics, not science. We call it argumentum ad monsantium.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science.
Of course he is. Science the field has an unfortunate property of not giving a shit about what people feel or think. That puts it at odds with people who demand surety. Which is why the idea of "evangelical zeal" is unamalgamated bullshit.
I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer".
Scientists are people, and come with all of the foibles that normal people do. But the evangelical bullshit came from the word processor of the writer. It is true that science gets sidetracked by business interests from time to time depending on who the scientist is work
Re:ahemm... the new Church (Score:5, Insightful)
Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data. Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not. Either it helps predict or it does not.
If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion.
Re: (Score:2)
"Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data."
There is still a context for it being right or wrong. Literally the entire reason they conduct tests... to you know... find out if the hypothesis cannot be dis-proven to become a theory. If a Hypothesis or theory can be proven, then it likely will become a Law or Fact which then makes it... right (correct) instead of wrong (incorrect). Additionally, you can still be right or wrong without havin
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you have mistaken impression of what science is and does. A hypothesis can be supported by data and still be wrong.
Scientists seldom deal in facts. Facts are for text books. Laws are for law books. Every scientist knows that his work is either supported by da
Re: (Score:2)
Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data. Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not. Either it helps predict or it does not.
If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion.
This. Sadly there are a lot of non-scientist who call themselves scientists and manage to spew enough psudo-scientific babble to confuse idiots who want desperately to believe something. I think that the likes of Andrew Wakefield and Anthony Watts are the worst conmen of our generation.
The difference between a scientist and a conman is that a scientist sets out test a hypothesis and looks at what the data tells them. A conman looks for the data that supports their hypothesis and ignores anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh boy.
Still no. We actually have often seen contradictory theories that both reflect observations and are predictive. They are both useful models until they aren't any more. If you need things to be definitive, then stick with moral philosophy.
"Right" and "wrong" a
Re: (Score:2)
For better or worse, "Science" is often used as a term for the scientific community.
And that community can be very, very, wrong when they build models on bad data, personal bias, or funding pressure.
Re: ahemm... the new Church (Score:4, Interesting)
https://youtu.be/pwaWilO_Pig [youtu.be]
Start here if you prefer listening than reading. Otherwise buy his book which summarizes all we know about sleep.
Having followed his advices in the last 8 months I started sleeping 7 to 9 hours per night. The effect is nothing short of miraculous...
Why do I know so much (general culture) people often ask me. Could it be in part that I read hundreds of books while growing up, every day for hours, usually before sleep? I think so...
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you'll feel better about things after a good night's sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
lol, yea... but only for a little while. Until I open up a news site and read something like this again.
It just amazes me that people stop acting like humans and their corrupting influences stops existing once you call them "Scientist's" or "Government Personnel" or by "Political Label" and then start acting like they are infallible or too good to be touched. Sounds more like the Catholic Church to me... I guess they are all jealous that the Pope beat them to the claim of being infallible and excommunicat
Re: (Score:2)
Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.
Those aren't features of science becoming a religion. Those are features of a capitalist society where science is increasingly limited to for-profit organizations. "Publish or perish" policies, biased studies funded by groups with an agenda to push, pandering to big corporations for research funds... all of that is capitalism.
Now, if you want to argue that the belief that pure capitalism can actually work in real life is basically a religion based on no evidence whatsoever... well, there are a lot of good
Re: (Score:2)
I think the biggest part is the horrible news reporting for science.
For it to be part of the news cycle to bring in advertising money, often the latest hypothesis being called a theory, which get people all excited and rialed up, only to become like a lot of science, shown to be a wrong path.
Real science is not a good spectator sport. When something becomes classified a theory in science, actually a lot of strong evidence it going for it. But often when it gets to that level, there is a lot of peer review a
Re: (Score:2)
"a growing number of scientists"..."are bringing evangelical zeal to the message"
I think the new church of science has become well established. Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.
I am a big fan of science, but it has become more of a religion of late than the search for truth about our world.
It wouldn't be science media now would it?.
I find the idea of combining Scientists and evangelical zeal together to be about as ludicrous and oxymoronic as you can get.
This story is silly. Do people need more sleep? Some do. Some don't. How much? Differs by person.
I like around 5 hours per night. Less than 4, and I start feeling the effects, and more than 5 simply doesn't happen unless I am ill.
My wife likes 8 hours. Her sister likes 10.
But none of the scientists I've known and worked with are eva
Lighten up Francis (Score:2)
Go watch this [youtube.com] for some context and stop attacking science. You're undermining people's belief in science with what are right wing talking points used to cut funding (and therefore taxes) to scientific research.
I don't think you're doing it on purpose and that's what makes it so awful. It's become insidious propaganda that folks are completely unaware of.
For a start... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Would be nice (Score:1)
I'm in my 50s and due to a neurological condition I'm lucky if i average 4 hours of straight sleep. I generally have to take several naps during the day. Usually after about 4 days my body cries uncle and i pass out for 6 to 8 hours. With everyone's life style being so different i dont see how they can claim any serious average amount of sleep. I've know season citizens that average 5 hours and they are perfectly fine.
-geekpoet
If you make everything a public health issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Then what are things going to be such as an outbreak of polio? If you can fix a 'disease' by changing your habits and lifestyle, it's not really a 'disease', it's slow, assisted suicide.
A public health issue is something the CDC can fix with strategic quarantine, a vaccine or antibiotics/antivirals. Changing behaviors is not the job of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be a physical disease that can be treated with medication, but it is a problem that shows up in increased healthcare cost. You know, one of the biggest money sinks on any government's budget.
Also, you're wrong. Addiction is a disease. It's a psychological problem that can't be treated by giving someone a pill, but still a disease.
Dismissing it by saying "you should just change your lifestyle" is a massive disservice to everyone who's ever had a psychological problem.
It's also an issue in which ou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's up to the states
Re:If you make everything a public health issue (Score:5, Insightful)
"Public health crisis" doesn't mean you have to set up white tents and guys in hazmat suits to deal with it. It means that you designate it something that gets significant resources directed to it as a matter of urgency, and hopefully everyone starts to take it seriously.
At the moment people tend not to even think of sleep as a major problem that affects many people, or something that we can tackle on more than an individual basis. This designation will help with things like getting companies to consider employee's sleep needs when setting schedules.
People stop being able to sleep as they age (Score:2)
You're not watching a suicide, you're watching somebody slowly waste away while you make fun of them.
Take a break from the media (Score:1)
A lot of people lose sleep because they think political bogey men and women are personally gunning for them amid a grand web of conspiracy theories and evil minions. Other people think the world may not be around in the morning because it's a few degrees warmer or colder than whatever "normal" is. Still others need to win arguments on the Internet no matter the cost.
Well guess what: There are real problems to lose sleep over like not making ends meet, or worrying over very ill relatives. Don't let fearmonge
Re: (Score:2)
Working hours... (Score:3)
Working hours: 50+ hours a week in white-collar jobs is now the norm. No vacay time to catch up.
Electronic connectivity: workers are expected to respond to emails outside of working hours. Yeah, 50 years ago, people had home phones, but calling someone outside of work was seen as more intrusive, and there had to be a damned good reason.
Overscheduling: if you're running around with your sprogeny in the evening, taking them to extracurricular bullshit activities, you still need time for yourself and to make love to your spouse. Sleep suffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Working hours: 50+ hours a week in white-collar jobs is now the norm.
Back in 1942, people worked even longer hours [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually proposed trimming working hours to 4 days of 7 hours. That's in response to an economic policy that severely-overheats the economy as a side-effect (it ends all poverty, but causes hyperinflation by making the middle- and lower-classes too rich), the correction for which is to make people poorer by reducing their productive labor time (working hours).
It's not TV and video games. I've done that: I stayed up until 5am reading books before. The metronome is employment, and employment sucks
Let's ask the insomniac in chief .... (Score:2)
Sounds important. Let's check with the man that has his finger on the nuclear and
24h is not enough (Score:2)
you got work, you got family requirements, other stuff you must do, etc.
add some of that important me-time/down-time (even if it is just only an hour), and there is little time left to sleep.
Sleep is anything but (Score:2)
interesting (Score:2)
Sleep Derivation is correlated with mental illness (Score:2)
Sure is kicking my ass (Score:2)
I moved into a place where there is this crazy hum 24/7. I don't know if some neighbor is running off a diesel genset or what but I can't find it on the property and it happens even when the power is out. During the day I rarely notice it (although sometimes it is more intense than others) but it's really destroying my ability to sleep through a night, which is definitely having a noticeable effect on my ability to function during the day. Since it's not very loud and I moved in after it did, I have no reco
How much is due to corporations? (Score:2)
Having worked for a Baby Bell back in the mid-nineties, and having heard stories from before that time, how many of *you* slashdotters have heard the infamous phrase "whatever it takes", meaning no sleep, no life, and no, you're never going to be given "comp time"?
But we don't need unions. I have no idea why our grandparents and great grandparents objected to jobs that required 12 and 16 hour days, with no benefits. Back then was the *real* "gig economy".