Talk:Insomnia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Neuroscience | (Rated C-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Psychology | (Rated C-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insomnia article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1 | |||
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Statistics for Insomnia
not true
"The average American gets 7-8 hours of sleep, instead of the 8 to 10 hours recommended by doctors. Children however are recommended more than 8 hours." This statement has nothing to do with insomnia. Anyone care to comment? josta59 16 May 2007
[edit] paragraph removed from "Other substances" section
I have removed a paragraph that read as follows:
Another reported effective natural treatment of insomnia is the use of the amino acids L-Tryptophan or 5-HTTP (not both at the same time) thirty minutes prior to sleeping. These amino acids serve to aid your body and brain in the production of Serotonin and Melatonin, both essential for proper sleep [46]. These must be taken on an empty stomach for proper absorption. If the amino acids alone are insufficient at treating the insomnia, then you may suffer from a blood-sugar related issue such as hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. In this case, people have reported that taking Chromium/Vanadium together with Alpha Lipoic Acid - both of which aid in balancing blood sugar - fifteen minutes after taking the amino acids seems to be fairly effective. In the latter case it is also important to stay away from foods that can drastically alter your blood-sugar levels, such as chocolates and rich sweets.
I removed it because, first, the source does not meet RS; second, the claim that taking Tryptophan or 5HTP 30 min before sleeping is helpful contradicts many other sources (they may be helpful but not when taken at that time); third, none of the other statements are referenced at all. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Cannabis Reference
I don't want to get into the politics of cannabis. I do feel that the link provided to support the claim that cannabis is helpful in treating insomnia is weak: it points to a self-published source on a site that can reasonably be expected to have a bias (www.cannabis.net). Therefore, I suggest someone either:
1) produces another link
2) removes the reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.94.6.5 (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Mortality Survey
The beginning of section 6 says "A survey of 1.1 million residents in America found that those who reported sleeping about 7 hours per night had the lowest rates of mortality, whereas those who slept for fewer than 6 hours or more than 8 hours had higher mortality rates". Not trying to be rude, but how exactly do you conduct a survey of residents in America to find out what their mortality rate is?
Ronb1224 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It was the American Cancer Society who conducted the study. I don't live in the USA and I am not a medical researcher but I would imagine being a large organisation like that they would have the funding to do such studies. I would imagine it would involve mailing families in the USA and asking if they would be willing to take part in the study or else mailing lots of medical practices. The same way any other study assessing mortality would be conducted only on a much larger scale.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's no need to speculate, the study is freely available. According to the writeup, participants in the survey were asked about their sleep habits, and six years later the investigators were able to ascertain for 98% of the subjects whether they were still alive. Looie496 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The article this section cites states clearly: "Slight risks associated with 8 or more hours of sleep and sleeping pill use need further study. Causality is unproven." It is my opinion that this article should be rewritten to avoid making such strong statements as "sleeping more than 8.5 hours leads to a 15% increase in mortality" unless such claims can be backed up with a reliable source. 209.164.247.35 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- The citation indeed states that but it also defines the slight risks as being 15 percent, saying "The increased risk exceeded 15% for those reporting more than 8.5 hours sleep or less than 3.5 or 4.5 hours."--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Causality
This article states, "Thus mild to moderate insomnia for most people may actually increase longevity and severe insomnia has only a very small effect on mortality." This is not true at all. It would be correct to say "mild to moderate insomnia is associated with increased longevity" or something like that.
People who own BMWs live longer than people who own less expensive vehicles. So by the logic of this article, purchasing a BMW may actually increase longevity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelkabo (talk • contribs) 09:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I see your point, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I will reread over the citation in the next day or two and see if I can improve the wording and clarify if the citation implies causation or association etc. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- You were right, that sentence was problematic and I have changed the wording to associated with rather than causes. See this edit. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Location
This article appears to be aimed at the US more than a general view, as statistics in the beginning make reference to the US more than the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriv1211 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- World statistics would be preferred if you can find any. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Improving
Can we start a peer review or at least some discussion so people can decide what needs to be done to improve this article above a C class? On top of basic things like referencing, I think that if there was a clear, agreed agenda for what major edits needed to be done, then this important article could be greatly improved. Jhbuk (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The most obvious things are that the lead needs to be expanded and that the article should be restructured to better match the standard layout for medical articles. It would really help if we could find a topic area expert who could make an assessment of whether the coverage is comprehensive. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
