Talk:Sleep

Some Positions Better Than Others?

(that headline sounds more fun than this inquiry really is, sorry;p) Is it unhealthy to sleep in a non-horizontal position? Fx on a couch, leaned against some pillows? Or is it a matter of taste or is it completely irrelevant for the quality of sleep?62.107.24.213 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How much sleep do you need?

O.k. I saw the whole table for ages but what is the normal amount of sleep that generally anybody needs please tell me and where you found your information!!!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z heezey (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An adult in good health who sleeps regularly, timed according to her/his chronotype, needs enough sleep to not feel sleep deprived nor excessively sleepy during the day. It is possible that some need no more than 5 hours and some require 10 hours, but those are a very small proportion of the population. The average is about seven and one half hours for both women and men.

For people living in a siesta culture and napping daily, the nap is included. People who nap only irregularly have a different quality to their naps. --Hordaland (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Z heezey has a point, we should have a source for those amounts. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Several huge studies have been done using self-reported sleep time, not controlled. This has made news lately: long sleepers die younger. News makes it look like cause-and-effect, even when scientists haven't said that. Studies controlled by actigraphy, for example, are much smaller. --Hordaland (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tryptofan

Why does this page label tryptofan as a possible cause of drowsiness when the tryptofan page on wikipedia calls it basically an urban legend?(MGoers37 (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

As I read tryptofan, it debunks tryptofan as a cause for drowsiness after eating lots of turkey (and other foods, which by itself can cause drowsiness). However, even in the case of tryptofan supplements it seems that the sources available are not entirely uncontroversial. Where next Columbus? (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is 47 KB KiB (7418 words) long. Because of possible technical issues, I think we should archive this page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Supported! Thanks for the warning; I just read through the whole page. Whew. --Hordaland (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just read though Help:Archiving a talk page. I think the cut and paste procedure should be used. I'll go ahead and do it this afternoon, leaving the three most recent threads, in case someone wishes to discuss them further. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

why sleep amount???

age nine is less slepp than 10-17 why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.107.105 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Our data is from [1] and [2]. You might want to try asking them. However, it's generally believed that teens need more sleep than pre-teens. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Puchiko (again). On a related topic, one often reads that "we" are sleeping less than "we" did a few decades ago. That's been debunked by recent studies, at least with regard to self-reported hours of sleep. I don't know if there've been studies of kids older than nap age and pre-puberty (about 6-10), and of teens. I suspect that both groups (in the industrialized world) are sleeping appreciably less than they did a few decades ago. --Hordaland (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've shortened the table for amount of sleep by age. There are huge individual differences, also among children, so it seems unnecessary and almost misleading to provide so much detail. I looked at the sources provided and don't think I changed much except "7-8(+)" for all adults. One sees 7-9 or 8-9 often, but no one seriously means that all adults need 9 hours sleep. The vast majority (in western societies, at least) self-report 7.5 hours at the top of a fairly even bell-curve. --Hordaland (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Adult photo

Why revert the photo of the adult sleeping, so that we have both child and adult, representing both aspects of biological sleep? 76.7.6.79 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:StreetSleepers3a.jpg

File:StreetSleepers3a.jpg

Original caption:An adult sleeping

I have removed this image. Yes, it's funny. But there's already an image in that section, and I don't think this deepens the readers understanding of the subject (it's definitely not what I imagine under the term "sleep"). I'll admit that the article looked quite hilarious, but we're not Uncyclopedia. However, since the removal of the image could be viewed as controversial, I have decided to leave a note on the talk page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For start what are the verifiable sources that tell us he's asleep. Given the nature of the subject it is not unreasonable to believe that he could be unconscious rather than sleeping. Given the nature of the picture a reasonable reader could ask this question. Further I agree that this is not adding anything useful to the article. Gwernol 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He looks like he fell asleep drawing. I can't imagine he is dead, he would not be left in the street. Sleep does not always happen on couches or beds. IT add another element of representation to the article. Please consider re adding it. 76.7.6.79 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think it's that representative of sleep. Lets try to pick a different image from commons:Category:Sleeping people, okay? The two I think are best for the article are Image:Israel 2 021 Sleeping Rucksack-Tourist.jpg and Image:Bezdomovci.jpg, as they clearly show that the people are sleeping (unlike the former picture), yet don't take place in conventional places for sleep (like the former picture). Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

looks like they could be cuddling. The image I would like to use represented that sleep occurs anywhere, it is clear this person is sleeping. 76.7.6.79 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's exactly the problem: in your opinion "he looks like he fell asleep drawing". He might be asleep. He might be drunk, drugged or dead. Its most likely he's asleep but its very plausible he's in another of those states. Any reader of this article could wonder about what the picture really shows. Unless you know for sure that this photo shows someone who is asleep, you can't claim for sure that he is asleep. Therefore you can't use this image in this article. Sorry, Gwernol 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

May I have a certificate from a doctor that shows the child is not in a drug induced state. I don't understand how your argument then only applies to my proposed photo. 76.7.6.79 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The author of the photo states it on the description page. 76.7.6.79 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor who created that photo tells us the child is asleep and a reasonable person looking at the image would not doubt it. The photo you are proposing adding has neither of these attributes to recommend it. Gwernol 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think it's representative of sleeping people, most people are lying down.
You have a point, we can't prove the girl is sleeping wither.
I've thought about this, and I guess I don't really mind if the image 76.7.6.79 added stays in the article, but I'd prefer a different one. When I saw the edit, I burst out laughing, which isn't really the purpose of this article. It's 10:20 PM over here, let's finish this discussion quickly so I can sleep.
P.S. I hate edit conflicts, this is like the fourth one in this discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I concede. 76.7.6.79 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She's sleeping, she's an adult, she shows what sleeping is like. She's perfect for the article.

Does anyone object to Image:Sleeping Kutchi.jpg? Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. 76.7.6.79 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done And I can go to bed. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The trivia section

The Rhett Lamb portion can be verified at the following site or by simply Googleing his name. It's legit I just don't know how to add citations. Anyone who does know how is welcome to use the google to confirm and add the citation. But again it is legit. http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/5/8/346720.html?title=Rare%20condition%20doesn't%20let%20St.%20Petersburg%20kid%20sleep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.195.241 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's called Longest period without sleep, not "trivia", and starts "Depending on how sleep is defined, there are several people who can claim the record for having gone the longest without sleep:"

1. Thai Ngoc ... claims to have been awake for 33 years ...
2. Randy Gardner holds the Guinness World Record for intentionally having gone the longest without sleep. ...
3. ... Tony Wright beat the Guinness World Record by staying awake for 11 days and nights. ...
4. There have been various, though largely unsubstantiated, claims by methamphetamine users that with the aid of methamphetamine they have gone without sleep for periods of up to two weeks. Users reportedly experience severe auditory and visual hallucinations that descend rapidly into methamphetamine psychosis[citation needed].

Tho I don't much care for trivia sections, nos. 1, 2 and 3 can stay there. No. 4 is just very vague rumor. I would guess that there are scientific reports on meth's effects on sleep, and that that info could easily be inserted elsewhere on the page, if desirable. I want to delete point 4 above. Objections? --Hordaland (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections, so I'm deleting point 4, quoted in full above. --Hordaland (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Memory processing

Turner et al. allowed 18 women and 22 men to sleep only 26 minutes per night over a 4-day period. [...] This demonstrates that there is clearly a connection between sleep and memory.

This does not show ANYTHING. 18 women and 22 men, while there are 6,000,000,000 people or so living on Earth? In addition, most psychologists perform their experiments asking for people to participate. The people who participate are generally university students between ages of 18 and, say, 24 who attend that very same university. So, if this shows ANYTHING AT ALL, it might be about university students between ages 18 and 24 at THAT PARTICULAR UNIVERSITY IN THAT PARTICULAR COUNTRY. It says NOTHING about people not in that group. And the amount of people they tested is too small anyway to be statistically meaningful (psychologists like to use the word "significant" instead). Their research cannot be used to make ANY determinations stated like "This clearly demonstrates". 40 people? 40 people out of 6,000,000,000? 40 people who were probably between ages 18 and 24? 40 people who probably were university students? 40 people who were probably all living in the same area and probably attending the same university? How does that "clearly" show ANYTHING about people of all ages world-wide? This is a ludricous statement. 67.8.56.20 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a nice rant. The abstract of the study you're criticizing is here; I don't know why there are so many linkless refs to the article.

I agree that the whole Memory section needs re-doing. It's full of details about small studies. When one or more competent people do a review article about such studies and results, they may become (collectively) meaningful. This is research in a fast-moving field. For example, the chronotypes of these 40 young, healthy people weren't taken into account, and very recent research suggests that morning people and evening people react differently to sleep deprivation. Wikipedia editors need be very careful using small, recent studies, though I don't agree that results of small studies are totally meaningless.

I hope to be able to tackle that section when I've read up a good bit more. If you feel yourself competent, please do work on it. --Hordaland (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I hold a Master's degree in Psychology. While studying Psychology, I found that most people in that field design experiments and then ask people to take those. The people participating usually get some monetary reward. But most, if not all, of the people participating are just students at that university. So it says nothing about non-students at that university. I already held a Master's degree in Computing/Computer Science when I started studying Psychology. As a result of my previous education, I learnt a lot more about statistics than most Psychology students or even professors ever will. After I got my Master's in Psychology, I was a professor for some years. I learnt then that lots of people active in the field of Psychology go out of their depth to make the results of their experiments "statistically significant". They use programs like SPSS and twiddle with the settings until they get a "statistically significant" result. And then they have something they can publish and get credit for. While there are some people in the field of Psychology that I truly have respect for, most of them (in my opinion, of course) just use some experiments performed on local students at that particular university and find some way to make a program like SPSS make those findings seem statistically significant. To me, personally, my Master's degree in Psychology is just a joke. Sure, it's a degree, but, no, it means nothing compared to the Master's I hold in Computer/Computing Science. And, unfortunately, I very quickly learnt that most people holding a Ph.D. in Psychology and are professors at universities have no clue. I got into fights many times. Because of my "real" scientific background. Social Sciences, unfortunately, in most cases, is just a joke. From the moment I enrolled as a Psychology student until I received my Master's degree in it was a little over 2 years. I think that proves a lot more than all the experiments I myself participated in as a student and all the experiments I conducted as a "psychology professor". But, to answer your last line, no, I don't want to work on it. I'm probably competent, but I have moved away from the field. I only started my rant because it reminded me of what I went through. 67.8.56.20 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well and good. I don't want to argue, just to point out that there are many specialties other than psychology studying sleep. They get their act together occasionally, as at the conference in the first reference to this article, and the progress is exciting. Any real expert readily admits that there's much more left to learn than what we already know. --Hordaland (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Human/non-human sleep

This article should really be separated into sleep and sleep in humans. Sleep isn't exclusive to humans but many sections of this article act that way. ...Shot not doing it. Leopold Stotch (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(I don't understand your last sentence.)

This is on my list of projects to get at! We have a newish article, Sleep (non-human), and the animal section here should summarize and point to that article. --Hordaland (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Children and adolescents

Anonymous contributor writes: "I changed the amounts of sleep for adolesents and children from 5-12 years of age."

There are 2 sources given for the info which was in the table before that edit. The first one says 5-12 yrs, 9-11 hrs and adolescents 8.5-9.5 hrs. The other one says

Ages 6 to 9: about 10 hours of sleep

Ages 9 to 12: about 9 hours of sleep

Teenagers: About 9 hours of sleep per night.

It is not at all OK to change info which is sourced. If Anonymous has sources which say something else, a new paragraph about the disagreement & new refs are in order. Reverting. --Hordaland (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's too easy for a person of that age to edit, then point Mom or Dad to it and say, "Look, Wikipedia says I only need 3 hours of sleep." :-)209.244.30.221 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to go without any sleep?

If you go without sleep for a long enough period of time will your body adapt to not needing to sleep at all? Just wondering. :0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.97.103 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I moved your comment to the bottom of the page, it's a custom to put new threads to the bottom. You should also sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or pressing the signature button (). Furthermore, this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, it really shouldn't serve as a general forum about the topic. See WP:Talk page guidelines for more information.
Concerning your question, the answer is no. This article says In humans, other mammals, and a substantial majority of other animals which have been studied — such as fish, birds, ants, and fruit-flies — regular sleep is necessary for survival. While sleep is essential for survival, its purposes are only partly clear and are the subject of intense research. The article Sleep deprivation provides excellent further material about the effects of lack of sleep in general, but I'll just quote the most important part In rats, prolonged, complete sleep deprivation increases both food intake and energy expenditure, leading to weight loss and, ultimately, death.
I mean there is this guy who claims he's been awake for thirty years, but I don't believe him. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all! Long time listener, first time poster (or something), so, go easy. I got a bee in my bonnet about "rats die if they don't sleep" not having a citation and came up with the following (which probably has better wording, too - their wording, not mine): "Sleep deprivation of over 7 days with the disk-over-water system results in the development of ulcerative skin lesions, hyperphagia, loss of body mass, hypothermia, and eventually septicemia and death in rats" http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10732&page=121

I have made other, generally minor, edits before without discussing them. I think that this one warrants some discussion, and wanted to float it and see if there were thoughts. Thoughts? Sredmore (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your exact quote "rats die if they don't sleep" doesn't appear in the article, so I suppose you mean "They started dying after 5 days." That's a typical statement which should have a reference. I'm pretty sure that I've seen a ref for that somewhere, and also one for something like "they were all dead within 14 days" -- I don't know where.

But you've found an interesting link which covers it. I'd rather see the whole quote in the ref itself, and a very short version in the article. Go for it. --Hordaland (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No discussion required. Just do it. --David from Downunder (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two people reported not to sleep any at all since childhood, both are males from Russia. Both have experienced traumatic shock as kids (finding and playing with abandoned hand grenade and mortar shell from WWII and seeing their pals gutted due to the explosion and themselves maimed somewhat). One of them became a collective farm peasant and spends his free time watching birds during daytime and the clouds and stars during night time. The other is a night guard, who spends his daytime reading, having memorized hundreds of books and read all the volumes of the city library. There was news about him after some telecom company gave him net access and computer, so he can read more. 91.83.23.74 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the rats, my understanding is that people now think they died from side effects of the stress caused by the sleep deprivation procedure, not as a direct result of sleep deprivation (as I recall, it was REM-sleep deprivation, not total sleep deprivation). Regarding the humans, this would be very interesting if it could be documented by studies in a sleep lab. Unfortunately there are urban legends along the same lines that show up every now and then, so it is necessary to insist on solid documentation. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Biochemicals in the brain

That triggers sleep and research on this would be nice. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving out-of-order comment here

Hey, first time asking for an edit, so... Anyway, i think the section 2.1 Restoration should be revised... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep#Restoration it says that studies found that sleep deprivation is bad for healing. and yet, on the sleep deprivation page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Effects_on_the_healing_process It says the oposite. Both pages cite sources. But clearly they cant be both right. Can someone check into this? At least the text should change to inform that studies with both results have been done. Thanks. 189.148.120.35 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)AnonymSleeper

I checked that out for you and fixed Sleep deprivation. Full sleep deprivation slows wound healing. When the rats were deprived of REM ("dream sleep") only, wound healing was not affected.

Makes sense. Growth hormone is produced in deep sleep, which the wounded rats were allowed. (Poor things: wounded, then deprived of REM.) - Hordaland (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nightwear

I am going to copy the "Nightwear" category from the Sleep template to the Clothing template. Should I delete it from Sleep? - PKM (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sleep: I've removed both Nightwear and Bedding as separate headings and put both (sans details) under Related topics. --Hordaland (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

User Elonka has questioned the use of blogs as sources in the trivia, ahem, Longest-period-without-sleep section. I'd point out that the blogger Coturnix (Bora Zivcovic) is a respectable scientist, now blogging at ScienceBlogs and employed at PLoS ONE. In the field of chronobiology he is a reputable source. However, in this case his off-hand comment to a news article is hardly worth citing and it is not one of the bits he's (proudly) moved from the old blog, Circadiana, to the new one, A Blog Around the Clock at ScienceBlogs. I'll remove the ref. --Hordaland (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Removed a bit more while I was there... --Hordaland (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the articulate comment, and attending to the concern. :) I agree that sometimes blogs by reliable scientists are acceptable as sources, however in those cases I think it's better to word the statement as "Scientist John Smith, noted as an expert on the subject by (source), said in his blog, (quote)." But just a generic statement like, "Bloggers say", is a bit vague, and not particularly encyclopedic. --Elonka 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported statement in introduction?

The studies in the article do not seem to support the opening statement that 'humans need regular sleep for survival'. This must be a key issue here, despite a few rat studies using different sleep interruption methods.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykral (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Err... I don't quite get your point. Experiments showed that rats did die after some days of not being able to sleep. There are reports that say that in ancient regimes, it was a possible method of torture to hinder people from sleeping, and, ultimatelly people where tortured to death by it. Of course, it's not possible to redo such an experiment today, but everybodys experience shows that only a few days without sleeps brings us close to breakdown. Having modern, scientific studies on this topic is just plain imposible today, except maybe you find some notes about similar experiments from Josef Mengele or somesuch, but I doubt those can be called serious from today's standpoint. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but I think the article does not support the absolute statement about humans, with Mengele studies or anything else directly on point. Therefore it looks like speculation.Ykral (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me a bit like the non-discussion about whether one needs a source in order to say that "the sky is blue". It can be a bit difficult to define what sleep is in some critters (see Sleep (non-human)), but mammals, at least, do sleep. Looks like it will be a few more years before anyone can say definitively why, as guesses are all over the place. --Hordaland (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Remark: The introduction does state that a lot of things about sleep are unknown, which includes the reason for it. Maybe this sentence in the introduction should be a bit more emphasized? --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested wording? (We can't use exactly my wording above: guesses are all over the place ;-))

The intro does now say "essential for survival.[1] However, its purposes are only partly clear..." That does to me seem to be the case. We can't claim that its purposes are totally unknown, nor that its function is fully understood.

I'm not entirely satisfied with the "bodily rest" formulation, as sleep seems more to be for the sake of the brain/CNS than for the rest of the body, but I haven't found a better first sentence (yet). Sleep is undoubtedly initiated by the brain, and equally certainly for the brain, at least in part. --Hordaland (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about something later, maybe I find a better solution (don't hope for to much ;-). --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more, I'd say the current wording isn't too bad after all. Its purposes are only partly clear clearly brings it to the point that we do not fully understand the reasons and the functions of sleep. Reading further in the section about the functions, we see that there are a few quite different theorems about the purposes and that even scientists are only stating theories, almost nothing is really proven. And to my point above: I don't think we can find a source about someone really proving that a man's going to die when kept awake (although I'd say it's been done before). --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a disease where people lose the ability to sleep and end up dying. Read about it here on wikipedia. Guess that one would prove that sleep is necessary for survival. This is it I think:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia62.107.24.213 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Future sections

You guys might want in the future to add a section on sleep posture. It's an interesting topic; everyone seems to have an opinion on whether to sleep on one's back or side (or even stomach - those heretics!). Solid information would be great - I came here hoping to find some. --Gwern (contribs) 23:24 7 September 2008 (GMT)

I think posture is important. For someone who has had back problems, a chiropractor recommended me that I should sleep on my back as opposed to sleeping on my side. I am not sure if this is true, but I heard that the best posture is on the side with a pillow between your legs so your body is fully straight and the spine is alligned. I will look up sources.--Skryte (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over this!?!?

Resting of Internal Organs

A theory states that during different time intervals of sleep, different organs are allowed to rest during its own time interval. This theory also supports the recommended 7 to 8 hours of sleep per day for adults, in terms of bodily rest. For example, an individual with a rather normal schedule of sleep that starts at 11 p.m. and wakes at approximately 7 p.m. (obtaining about an average of 8 hours of sleep a day), has given rest to his or her organs in the following approximated time intervals: 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. for the liver, 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. for the kidneys and 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. for the stomach. For the rest of the organs, it is unknown. Since the liver is such an important and large organ in the body, if it does not acquire enough rest, it may lead to certain problems in the future such as increasing the chances of certain health risks (if the situation becomes prolonged). Therefore, it does not take much effort to tell if a person has slept later at night or has broken their sleep schedule, usually by looking at the eyes and the area around the eyes. However, it is still unsure if the eyes can give acceptable "readings" if an individual sleeps later than around 1 a.m.. In example, signs of insufficient sleep like darker eye circles or red eyes usually tells that someone has not obtained enough sleep, but it does not support this theory for the lack of rest of the kidneys or stomach.

The above section was added by user Infinitix3 and deleted by yours truly about an hour later with edit summary: (Removing "interesting" unsourced theory.). A couple of hrs later it was re-inserted by Infinitix3, still totally un-sourced. I've left a message on Infinitix3's talk page, and I'll remove the section again now. --Hordaland (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. The theory basically seems reasonable, but it definitelly needs some sources. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

http://www.luciddreaming.com/information/sleep-restoration.php has just been added, by IP user 68.81.232.6, as an "External link". That page carries the legend "Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. Huge chunks of that page are identical to the same chunks of the article.

I don't know how to find out whether luciddreaming.com copied and copyrighted text from Wikipedia, or Wikipedia has lifted text from that site in violation of copyright. Do you? --Hordaland (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First, thanks, Hordaland, for bringing up this concern (and pointing it out to me on my talk page :)). The material evolved here organically. Looking for an idiosyncratic term, I found that "ontogenetic" was first introduced into the article on June of 2005, here. This gradually evolved (cf. [3]). Coupled with the lack of an archived version of that source (here) and the copyright date on it, it seems very likely that they've infringed on us. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a huge problem with such popular articles as this one. I've been writing a lot on the german article, but whenever I google for some word from the article (i.e to find additional sources or information) I get mirror after mirror. Of course, none of them state that they are mirrors or where the information is comming from. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We just realized our content writer took excerpts from Wikipedia and did not give credit. We're in the process of finding a new content writer and providing well researched, unique content for sleep sections discussed. We're very dissapointed to discover that our services were not rendered properly and that our directions weren't followed. Until then we've added 'Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' to the bottem of content pages where we feel excerpts were taken from context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.232.6 (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Free Software Foundation does not own copyright on the content of Wikipedia articles - the individual authors do. To comply with the licensing you should follow the directions here or remove the content immediately. -- SiobhanHansa 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed 2 new paragraphs from lead.

The following text was recently added at the top of the article. Interestingly, it is quite true, though unsourced, not written appropriately for an encyclopedia and certainly inappropriate as the beginning of the article. Sounds like a copy/paste from some newspaper article, perhaps?

Research shows that teens need 8½ to more than 9 hours of sleep a night. You don't need to be a math whiz to figure out that if you wake up for school at 6:00 AM, you'd have to go to bed at 9:00 PM to reach the 9-hour mark. Studies have found that many teens, like Matthew Adams, have trouble falling asleep that early, though. It's not because they don't want to sleep. It's because their brains naturally work on later schedules and aren't ready for bed.

During adolescence, the body's circadian rhythm (sort of like an internal biological clock) is reset, telling a teen to fall asleep later at night and wake up later in the morning. This change in the circadian rhythm seems to be due to the fact that the brain hormone melatonin is produced later at night in teens than it is for kids and adults, making it harder for teens to fall asleep. Sometimes this delay in the sleep–wake cycle is so severe that it affects a person's daily functioning. In those cases it's called delayed sleep phase syndrome.

--Hordaland (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is like 99% a copyvio. See this google output. Several exact matches... --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sleep latency

I would like to include the normal amount of time that it takes to fall asleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.93.201 (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. Find a good source and add it! My guess would be about 5 to 20 minutes.

(I'm adding a new section title, as this seems to be a new discussion.) - Hordaland (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Amusingly, there is already a Wikipedia article on sleep onset latency, although it isn't very useful. This link may be a reasonable starting point for research. looie496 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What that latency article does point out, though not real clearly, is that sleep latency will vary according to the time of day you're going to sleep. For example (and there should be many sources for this out there), if a normal, healthy, not-sleep-deprived adult consistently goes to bed at 11 p.m., s/he will likely get to sleep quite quickly at that time. Trying to get some sleep at 8 p.m. or at 11 a.m. will take longer. But this varies widely individually, and taking a nap at siesta time (about 1-2 p.m.) will allow a much shorter latency than the nap times just mentioned. - Hordaland (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

5-HTP

I could swear I removed that sentence at some point. The statement that ingesting 5-HTP can cause drowsiness is false, or at least misleading. I have taken it, and I can tell you that its direct effect is to enhance wakefulness. The directions on some bottles actually advise taking it in the morning or afternoon, not at night -- and I'll tell you that if you do take it at night, you won't find it easy to sleep. It is true that if taken in the morning, it probably has a modest effect of making it easier to fall asleep at night, many hours later, but that isn't the impression given by the sentence currently in the article. (What I am saying here fits the pharmacology, by the way: serotonin levels drop during SWS and fall almost to zero during REM, so a serotonin agonist such as 5-HTP would not be expected to directly promote sleep.) looie496 (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's OR, Looie :-)

The question comes up every Thanksgiving, doesn't it? Coturnix comments on it again, with links to comment sections from previous years, and to other blog posts. Does Tryptophan from turkey meat make you sleepy? Here. Short version: nobody knows; studies in several species are incomplete. - Hordaland (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's my OR against the article's unsourced statement :-). But see this abstract, the first I hit using Google Scholar. Anyway, I'm pretty skeptical about tryptophan myself, since it's a basic amino acid that comes into play all over the body. But 5-HTP plays the same role in the serotonin system that L-DOPA plays in the dopamine system, and so from a theoretical point of view it ought to be a pretty potent drug. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sub-optimal image caption

"Two men sleeping in Tehran" is not the most descriptive caption that I could think of for the image in the introduction. Wouldn't "sitting on a bench" or "in sitting posture" be more relevant information than in what country they happen to be located? __meco (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. The woman is identified by community or tribe, but the child isn't. I'll change the 2 men. - Hordaland (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I favor reverting the caption back to "Two men sleeping in Tehran", rather than "Two men sleeping in a sitting position". Because anyone (except blind readers) can see that they're sitting, it adds no information to the picture. The Tehran caption was educational for people like me who thought up until now that Tehran was basically a barren sand-filled desert filled with scorched-clay buildings and dark skinned people who wear turbans and ride camels on the streets. But if I came across the picture for the first time now I would probably say "Wow, look at all that green grass. This picture must have been taken in some place like Vermont!" Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. It could also have been taken here in Western Norway except that, of course, here we have polar bears instead of camels in the streets. :-) - Hordaland (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Improper citing

This article constantly cites various authors et al. in the main article. Someone should cite the article in proper wiki format. Odin1 (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

discontinuing stage 4?

There's a lot of mention that some "new standard" gets rid of stage 4, but it needs to be cited. Anyone? 83.146.14.125 (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you go.

- Hordaland (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote that section as it was really disordered. I also moved the picture so that it appears in the blank space on the right of the TOC, instead of squashing up the lead paragraph. 83.146.13.184 (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks much! - Hordaland (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthropology of sleep

I think that this section should be downsized due to the confusion between anthropological and biological sleep patterns, we ARE diurnal after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.21.63 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On this topic also see recent study: [4]. Among the OECD countries, French and Americans sleep the most. Koreans and Japanese the least, followed by Norwegians and Swedes. The Scandinavian Finland though is about average (so latitude might not have much to do with this).radek (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Here's India's take on it

But self-reported sleep time isn't very reliable. Here's an American study report on that. It wouldn't surprise me if there are cultural differences making one country overestimate and another under. Maybe.

(And. Sorry to be picky but Finland is a Nordic country but not a Scandinavian one. It is, of course, as far north as most of Norway. The Scandinavian languages are germanic and closely related. Finnish is way different, related only to Estonian and Hungarian as far as I know.) - Hordaland (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

serotonin and sleep

I'd just like to add a pointer to PMID 19209176, which contains a nice explanation of the relationship between serotonin and sleep. The basic story is that serotonin agonists have an immediate effect of increasing wakefulness, but a delayed indirect effect of promoting slow wave sleep. The increased sleep always comes during the natural sleep phase of the light/dark cycle, regardless of what time of day the drug is administered. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Caffeine addiction and sleep problems

The article says about caffeine: "It can cause a rapid reduction in alertness as it wears off." This is like saying that heroin can make the regular user feel unwell when it wears off. "No such thing as caffeine addiction" I hear you say, but would you be willing to go without it? People who do not consume caffeine (including myself) report feeling alert all the time, and fall asleep rapidly and wake up alert and refreshed. 78.151.148.89 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that there is "No such thing as caffeine addiction"? It's mentioned in the article Caffeine. I can assure you that there are troublesome withdrawal symptoms after less than 24 hours.

I agree that the sentence about reduction in alertness doesn't say much. - Hordaland (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)