Talk:Sleep

Functions: Restoration

"A sedentary non-sleeping animal is more likely to survive predators, while still preserving energy. Sleep therefore does something else other than conserving energy."

There's a shaky logic in that. It's assumed that sleep could not evolve as a mechanism to preserve energy because it's not the most efficient way to do that. That would be possible to prove if we knew of other energy-preserving strategies employed by animals who don't sleep. Do we? But traits don't necessarily evolve down the most efficient paths, they seem to follow the most effiecient paths available and some times evolutionary trade-offs are made. For example, bipedalism in humans is not a very efficient form of locomotion so it probably served some purpose other than walking- but the primary use of legs is still walking. So sleep could have been the best way to conserve energy while doing something else in addition to that, or it may have been the cost to pay for an other characteristic, or any number of things like that.

As about predation, it should be noted that predators sleep too. For the quoted proposition to fully stand to reason, it must be shown that all or most animals sleep at different times than their most common predators- otherwise sleep would not increase the risk of being eaten. Then again it is not clear to me at least that sleeping puts an animal in danger. If some animals are awake at the time of day that their predators sleep, that would give them more freedom to move around and search for food or mate. If those animals can sleep safely enough, sleep may even be an advantage to them (though that would be the sleep of their predators, rather than their own and it would be harder to show how predators themselves would benefit from that).

Please understand I'm not proposing that sleep is indeed an energy-saving mechanism. The argument about hibernating animals is strong enough I think. It's just that the logic of the quoted proposition above strikes me as, well, wrong. I guess the quoted passage needs a citation, then? Or even removal altogether? Stassa (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire section "Functions" needs be modernized and shortened. It should cite reviews and/or textbooks, not small basic research studies. It's been said that sleep is of the brain, by the brain and for the brain and I doubt that predator or prey has much to do with it. The needed rewrite will be a project for someone some day. (Maybe you?) - Hordaland (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Any argument that can't be tested experimentally is shaky to some degree. This argument has been used often in the literature, and seems strong enough to me to belong in the article, but I agree that it needs references.Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha! There you are, Looie. You're the one who can re-write the entire Functions section! - Hordaland (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence means that you could preserve energy by just resting (not moving, hiding), instead of actually sleeping. That would indeed reduce the energy consumption (compared to moving around or doing whatever else) but also reduce the risk of being eaten, because one can still be fully alert and be on the run if need arises. If you're sleeping you probably don't notice your predator until it's too late. So the sentence sais that the reason for sleeping cannot be energy consumption alone. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this is anywhere near the right place, but rather than edit the article, here is my 2 cents. I think it stands to reason that sleep can help animals avoid predation, many animals sleep at night when it would do them no good to run around in the dark with nocturnal predators around. Also that point about lions (further down) not making sense is refuted by the fact that they ARE top predator and only need to eat once a day, if that, unlike grazers that need to eat all day. I think the topic of predation/energy is best supported by Jerome Siegel of UCLA, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000723.html there is bunch of information in this article...but I lack the guts (and account) to start chopping this thing up. Predator and prey/Energy conservation is the best damned explanation of sleep I have ever come across, although i concede that sleep has some other functions too. Look at polyphasic sleep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep We don't need all the sleep we get! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.65.218 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Even needed?

"Some say aliens abducts people when people are sleeping."

Is this even needed or relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.212.93 (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That was vandalism. Unfortunately this article is a bit of a vandal magnet. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

People who never sleep?

Hello there,

I've heard about cases such this one: http://www.thanhniennews.com/features/?catid=10&newsid=12673 numerous times and never found any explanation. It seems that a human being can be deprived from sleep for years with no obvious health impact. The case above mentions a 'fever' as a reason for this long-running insomnia. I have also heard about such cases caused by head trauma. It also has been described in fiction (i.g. 'The Watchers and the Watched' by Sid Chaplin if I am not mistaken). So what do you think?

I've also heard that sleep deprivation may be used to heal some depressions. But can't find any sustainable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.134.193 (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There are people who sleep very little, but to my knowledge no cases of people who never sleep at all have been scientifically verified by EEG study in a sleep lab -- these are just stories as far as I know. The effect of sleep deprivation on depression is very well established. This isn't commonly used as a treatment because the depression tends to return quickly once the patient is no longer sleep-deprived. However, one of the clearest effects of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs) is to alter sleep patterns, especially by reducing REM sleep. Our articles unfortunately don't cover this material very well, but if you search on Google Scholar for "depression sleep" you'll find tons of relevant stuff. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

According to this book: Sleep deprivation, Kushida, Clete Anthony, publisher = Informa Health Care, 2005, ISBN 0824759494,

http://books.google.com/books?id=EaGWMXsR5XYC&pg=PA183&dq=isbn=0824759494&ei=3nAxStaFEIXkywScxajyBQ#PPA2,M1

microsleeps are inevitable and even though a person may not be aware of them, they can add up to an appreciable amount of sleep. - Hordaland (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Aparently Don Van Vliet stayed awake for two years once...79.78.62.102 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text - explained

I've removed this recently-added text: "Most humans average 7.6 hours of sleep a night; some people get by on an incredible 15 to 30 minutes. Others may need as much as 11 hours." which was cited to Psychology In Action, Eighth Edition, Huffman, Karen (2007), page 173.

"Most humans" is very general & how would one know, worldwide? Also, the average amt of sleep for all humans is uninteresting, as age plays such a big role. The assertion that "some people get by on an incredible 15 to 30 minutes," aside from the hardly encyclopedic "incredible", requires a better source than an entry-level psych textbook which, btw, has been criticized for being too US-centric. Needing "as much as 11 hours" is hardly a lot, as infants may need 18. Either the textbook is uncarefully written or the citing of it is. - Hordaland (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to your removal, the 15 minutes is really hardly believable. Maybe it was supposed to mean "at once" (but multiple times a day). Someone requiring 15 mins of sleep per day in the long term is ... well, interesting ;-) --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 13:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Waking up

'Waking up' redirects to this page, however there is no specific information about the physiological and psychological processes of waking up anywhere on the page. Should this be added as a section? --90.198.9.109 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal. Surely there must have been research specifically on waking up, though I don't recall seeing anything that narrow. There's been some lately about how different chronotypes function and feel upon waking and throu the day. For example, here. See also sleep inertia and wakefulness. But what/how exactly is the process of waking up? - Hordaland (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a tremendous amount of information on this -- PMID 12531132 is the best source I can find. Looie496 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fumes which awake you 100 %

Is there an "alarm clock" which has a harmless liquid (or gaseous) substance inside which - when released as fume (or gas) at preset time - immediately awakes you fully.

Substance which affects central nervous system when it enters bloodstream trough lungs. Substance which simply MUST affect you that way at a chemical level - removing whatever makes you sleepy and delirious - sort-of an antidote (a "sleep detoxification"); so in a matter of seconds you are fully aware just as you are in the middle of the day and you simply get up.

The place to ask questions that aren't related to improving an article is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is Stage N4?

I think this is a question someone has added to the article rather than a part of the article, so I've moved Where is Stage N4? from the article to here. ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This question comes up so often that the article probably ought to address it explicitly. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The article already says "...resulted in several changes, the most significant being the combination of stages 3 and 4 into Stage N3. The revised scoring was published in 2007 as The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events. - Hordaland (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think 30 days is too short given the activity level here -- I'd suggest at least two months and perhaps even six months. With that caveat, I'd say go for it. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Basis of phenomena

What if being awake is the phenomena and sleep is what we truly are? --Jay(Talk) 16:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This page should only be used for discussing possible ways to improve the sleep article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hours by age" chart

I've got a serious problem with even including this chart. It's based on a single 'source,' which is an internet article written by 4 authors, none considered an international expert in sleep research. There is NO research, not 1 citation, presented to support the "average" sleep #'s presented; it is all anecdotal. (In fact, average world adult sleep appears to be more like 6.5-7.5 hrs. according to a few studies I quickly found. Presentation of this single, unsourced chart on the Wiki page makes it appear to be "the" authoritative chart of optimal/average sleep for all ages. And people might rely on this chart to make lifestyle changes and/or child-rearing choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.70.117 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sleep = stated as natural, however sleep is cultural defined.