Talk:Polyphasic sleep

monophasic sleep consists of many phases

Doesn't monophasic mean one phase? Jclerman 17:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Jclerman 04:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, monophasic sleep consists of one large period of sleep per day, in which a person will go through all the phases of sleep, and several of them (REM, NREM4, etc) multiple times. - Alan 134.173.56.36 18:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Monophasic = one phase with many stages Jclerman 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Academic Citations?

Can we support some of the praise and criticisms of polyphasic sleep with some academic citations? --cprompt 20:26, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

If someone has access to databases of scientific publications (Science Direct is ok), they can look up publications in Sleep Medicine Reviews and other similar magazines. For example:

• Sleep inertia. Patricia Tassi, Alain Muzet, Sleep Medicine Reviews, Volume 4, Issue 4 , August 2000, Pages 341-353
• The effects of a 20 min nap in the mid-afternoon on mood, performance and EEG activity. Hayashi, M. / Watanabe, M. / Hori, T., Clinical Neurophysiology, Feb 1999
• Effects of sleep interruption on REM-NREM cycle in nocturnal human sleep. Miyasita, A. / Fukuda, K. / Inugami, M., Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Aug 1989
• Attempts to modify the sleep patterns of the rat. Webb, W.B. / Friedman, J., Physiology and Behavior, Apr 1971
• Pre-sleep cognitive intrusions and treatment of onset-insomnia. Sanavio, E., Behaviour Research and Therapy, Jan 1988

Brian was very kind to get these publications for me (actually, he did it a year ago, but my backlog of e-mail prevented me from doing anything about them). I may not have the time to go through them right now (as I didn't have it for the past year), but if someone is willing to do it (hopefully there are some relevant facts to strengthen this article), they are available at [1] (3Mb zip archive). Paranoid 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, if that someone can also copy for me the text of A possible cure for death. Olson, C.B., Medical Hypotheses, May 1988, I'd appreciate that. Paranoid 22:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you still need that, it is available here. NoPuzzleStranger 13:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, NoPuzzleStranger! Isn't it cool that we can have a conversation with 6-month pauses? :) You can imagine that I am sitting on a comet in the Oort cloud, you are on Earth and we are talking over a radio comlink. :) Looking forward to reading your reply in June 2006. :) Paranoid 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions a study in which human volunteers were deprived of REM sleep, yet no citation is provided - not even the institutional affiliation of the investigators. This should be corrected, or else mention of this study should be removed. 07:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems confusing and potentially misleading or even dangerous to say "This is an excellent method..." near the beginning of the article when the only examples that are provided are either too historical to take seriously (da Vinci??) or simply negative, like those alluded to in the Criticisms section. Can we add evidence to justify the "excellent" generalization, or tone down the praise to something more conditional? --Epistaxis 13:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Misleading/Biased Paragraph removed

I have removed the following paragraph:

When humans are left to sleep in situations with minimised zeitgebers they generally sleep according to a circadian rhythm often with a short nap midway in the cycle (the siesta). Sleep occurring in natural synchronisation with ultradian rhythms in healthy adult humans are unheard of. Forcing the body against its natural rhythm is stressful on the mind and body and has detrimental health effects. Though there are no observable short term health problems in polyphasic users, except a feeling of tiredness during the 2-week transition period, long term polyphasic usage has not been thoroughly studied.

I found it rather confusing. It claims that polyphasic sleep is "stressful... and has detrimental health effects" in one sentence, but in the next claims that "there are no observable short term health problems" and that there are no long-term observations. It sounds like someone wrote this to try to discredit polyphasic sleep not because they have evidence that it is bad, but because it sounds "unnatural." If anyone has information to the contrary, please put this paragraph back in and cite evidence. - Alan 134.173.56.36 18:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

separate uberman article?

I wanted to advance the idea of a separate uberman article, since although the uberman sleep schedule is a form of polyphasic sleep, it is perhaps the most extreme form- I beleive that pepole who sleep a total of 8 hours but just split it up into two 4 hour blocks count as polyphasic sleepers, even though their goal is not reduction of time spent asleep. Since polyphasic sleep can take so many diffrent forms, I think it would be worth it to have an article about the "purest" variation of it. --2tothe4 09:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

-- Perhaps just it's own section?

I agree with advancing the idea of a separate uberman article, because uberman in and of itself can easily consist of many facets that would make the polyphasic article more lengthy than I believe the wiki community would allow. Specifically, someone wanting to learn more about how to start it would not gain much from reading about polyphasic sleeping. --Numale 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

clarification/correction

"Sleep occurring in natural synchronisation with ultradian rhythms in healthy adult humans are unheard of. Forcing the body against its natural rhythm is stressful on the mind and body and has detrimental health affects."

This seems contradictory. Are ultradian rhythms unnatural? Seems like there's something wrong with the first sentence (besides grammatical agreement) and I'm not sure what was meant.

That there are ultradian rhythms doesn't imply that sleep sync's with it naturally. ultradian rhythms include things like eating, drinking, urinating or nasal passage dilation. Natural sleep isn't known to follow any kind of evenly spaced ultradian rhythm. Though cycling through REM sleep cycles during a "normal" 8hr sleep can be considered ultradian since it's a "many per day" thing. It perhaps could use some clarification so long as it doesn't make the section more lengthy than it already is...

Palahemioglobanation

WTF does this mean? :)

Don't advocate

Remember that wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia ("a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject"), not an advocacy board.

Comments like "it is possible that this is an excuse" do not belong in such an encyclopedia. "It is possible" is not information, it is a conclusion. And not only is it a conclusion, it is also an equivocative conclusion.

I have taken the liberty of removing that particular section.

tightened criticism

I just removed this paragraph from the criticism section: "Claudio Stampi seems to advocate polyphasic sleep only as a means of ensuring optimal performance in situations where extreme sleep deprivation is inevitable. In particular his work aims to improve performance in solo sailboat racers. Claims that Stampi advocates the polyphasic sleep as a lifestyle are misleading. He has yet to make public claims to advocate or condemn the use of polyphasic sleep as a long-term lifestyle choice."

Why? It's too specific to Claudio Stampi. It reacts to claims that haven't been made. Some people who advocate or try Polyphasic sleep have never heard of Claudio and nobody in THIS article has claimed that Stampi supports it as a lifestyle, so the criticism seems to be attacking a straw man.

I also removed: "There is no better way to see the impossibility of success with polyphasic sleep than to study innumerous blogs posted on the web." It seems to be making an argument, and a bad one at that. --Blogjack 02:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Did Da Vinci Really Sleep This Way?

Is there any historical evidence that Da Vinci slept this way? Alecmconroy 17:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article only says he applied catnapping to a 'large extent'. So I'm not certain whether the statement should even be there. --B44H 01:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added an original research tag to this page as it seems to have many problems with citing sources and verifying claims. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right about the scarcity of references. The problem is that there is nearly no research to support the claims in support of the effectiveness of polyphasic sleep. The "evidence" comes from false rumours about the sleep of the great minds, like Tesla or Jefferson, and one misunderstood book by Claudio Stampi. The rest comes from the power of mythmaking and rumourmongering on the Internet. Yet, any good encyclopedia should mention the myth of Zeus. Uberman Sleep Schedule seems to have more believers than Zeus today. The entire criticism is well rooted in sleep research. It only awaits for a patient soul to list it all in the article. Perhaps someone digs up Stickgold's article from this year October's Nature as a lovely example of how harmful this polyphasic concept is.

Stop adding in the dozens of links

Let me refer you to ...

• WP:SPAM
• WP:RS
• WP:NOT

Please stop adding in those dozens of blog links. That is all. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your efforts indicate you are a minimalist who would like to see Wikipedia as clear as pure crystal and better than Britannica. Life has shown many times that minimalist lose out when it comes to precious information. Those links are precious and I am pretty sure all those polyphasic sleepers will come and restore them even if I listen to your reasoning. The reason is: VALUABLE INFORMATION WILL ALWAYS COME BACK! I believe in the utilitarian value of Wikipedia and will gladly tolerate a degree of chaos wherever it boost encyclopedia's power as the source of information.

Let's then see who makes the next move. The purists or those who are interested in polyphasic sleep. For now I go to other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.24.244.5 (talk)

Your edits go against Wikipedia policy, so I revert them. Especially relevant is the section in WP:NOT called Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• WP:SPAM - those blogs do not promote commercial products, they also hardly promote individuals, they are a source of information about p.sleep
• WP:RS - those blogs are source of genuinely precious information about personal experience; until science truly takes on p.sleep, there are no better sources of information on the net
• WP:NOT - I do not see how any of the NOTs apply here (the repository is in the blogs, the article carries the minimum: the link)

Last but not least, the above WPs are not the Bible of Wikipedia either. This is a community, and as such it carries a dose of demoratic power for grass root efforts. Over.

I concord. L'll revert the changes until further notice or intervention of an admin.

Federico Pistono 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Quoting: Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. ::All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. ² Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. Solved with the last edit, reduced to the most relevent for the english wikipedia..

Federico Pistono 04:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems supporters of blog inclusion made their first move :) Those inactive blogs are also of value, after all they are a document of failure. This is even more telling than a new active blogs of newbies who still have great hopes without realizing the torture to come.

As for foreign languages, they would best be placed in a translation of the polyphasic sleep article in their own languages. After all, they are useless for >99% of Wikipedians if included in the English version. Those with the command of Russian, German or Ukraininan, can simply click to read their version of the article and follow to foreign language blogs.

Do you then suggest on reposting the inactive blogs?

p.s. Please sign your comment.

Federico Pistono 08:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for original research. All links should be verifiable sources. In addition, Wikipedia is not about promoting pseudoscience. If something hasn't been "picked up on" by the scientific establishment yet, there's probably a good reason. See also astrology, telekineses, UFOs, Big Foot, etc. Having a bunch of links to random people's blogs goes against these guidelines. Random people are not scientists and whatever results they get are not going to be verifiable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of research on a particular (pseudoscientific) topic. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 12:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your struggle against pseudoscience is commendable yet sisyphean. Astrology article is carrying a remarkably long list of links; perhaps a wee more mature and informative for the weight of the subject and the length of its history. Instead of enforcing an inquisition against pseudoscience, try to smuggle educational material through "criticism" sections. Use carrot and knowledge as tools of change, not Bush-like/Taliban-like limits on the freedom of speech. And, incidentally, you are quite wrong about science being uninterested in polyphasic sleep. NASA is sinking a heavy dollar into investigating various sleep schedules, incl. polynapping, and the research is led by David Dinges. You will not find a more reputable chronobiologist out there. That the verdict on polyphasic sleep is doomed to be negative does not undermine its being an object of interest for science. And guess what ... those sleep researchers read those blogs as well. Where the hell will you ethically find so many guinea pigs ready to slaughter their brain cells to reveal the mysteries of sleep?

Yours "silly anon"

I think all of these links are of the utmost relevance to the article. These links don't promote pseudoscience, they merely document it and make no claims about being scientific themselves. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included. --Kevin 23:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

-Sigh- I don't like saying this so much, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I do believe that the blogs, however unverifiable, may be relevant to the article or may have some truth. However I disagree with the notion that "because they are related, relevant, or possibly correct, they they should be included." One example is the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire movie, where people tried putting every difference between the movie and the book. Yes, these differences are about the movie, but we don't need to know all that! And back to scientific articles, we don't include each and every study (I hope). When I read an encyclopedia, I am not looking for a huge collection of different personal stories about one topic (I can find these elsewhere). I would like to learn about a topic, not be directed to a million blogs. WP:NOT states:

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia.

And I know some of you may disagree. That's okay, because Wikipedia is an ongoing project (which needs some standards nonetheless). I just hope that we can make this article better for all. Horncomposer 01:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a classic clash of minimalists with utilitarians. Minimalists try to convert Wikipedia to a small, concise, pure Encyclopedia. Utilitarians want to suck maximum value. As an utilitarian I can advice minimalists to just steer clear of the "junk" and let the utilitarians use the power of Wikipedia to collaboratively clear up the waters, however muddy. Most of all, it seems minimalists are losing the battle. Why would they then waste time on removing the stuff others consider valuable? Wasting their time again and again? If there is value added, people will want to use it and capitalize on it. That's market economy. Wikipedia will never work as an encyclopedic monopoly like Britannica, because it is a free market of ideas, opinions and concepts.

Yes that is a good point. I may appear to be "minimalist," but I actually enjoy Wikipedia because of this great power. I would like each article to include each and every piece of information which is related, but would also like a limit of some sort (to prevent it from getting out of hand). This is where standards and policies come in to help set this limit. I do not consider myself to be one who sets these limits, but I would just like everyone to be aware of why these exist. I just don't want Wikipedia to become too much like the Internet. Then again policy changes and different interpretation of policy do occur...But back to the topic at hand, I still do not feel the blogs are of much value to this article. Honestly, I would remove them; I can use a simple search and find many blogs. But I have not and will not edit this article...yet.

It is indeed easy to find blogs, yet it is hard to find the list that is "peer-reviewed" by fellow bloggers who seem to introduce some order in that list (lesser priority for inactive, boastful, or uninformative). Luckily it seems some of this creativity moved from Wikipedia to a polyphasic wiki. Thus minimalist will harm only those less persistent information seekers.

btw: Isn't it easy to find article on virtually any subject? It is the collective centralized wiki-peer-review that attracts everyone to Wikipedia away from the chaos elsewhere

qunothey

googled it. dictionary.com'ed it. wiktionary'ed it. wikipedia'ed it. I just can't qunothey it.....

Anyone?

What? Federico Pistono 09:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That was just an edit error or vandalism. Do not remember. Removed it and restored the lost paragraph.

Catnap

Catnap: What does this term mean in the article? Some people may use it all the time, but I've never heard it until now. I have found different usages of it, such as referring to a power nap. However, the power nap article says it is usually for sleep deficits, not polyphasic sleep. And if catnapping is an "art" (most likely referring to polyphasic sleep), it seems to contradict what's in the power nap article. Could someone possibly reword the article/standardize it so the terms are properly defined? Horncomposer 09:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be most sensible to use the term nap everywhere as there are no physiological delineations of which is which. People use different terms in different contexts to add flavor to individual words. This is how I would define those flavors:

• catnap - when it is short, or frequent, or in provisional environment (e.g. armchair) and when it is pleasantly refreshing - sort of association with a napping cat
• power nap - when it is supposed to be super-smart, well-planned, when it is super-short and super-effective, when it gives you super-mental powers, makes you feel new, refreshed and like a superman

So the key would be in catnaps being slow and lazy, while power-naps being a super-human tool. "Cluster napping" though is well defined as a series of short naps in succession. Say you are boat-racing and cannot afford more than just 2-3 min. of sleep or ... you will hit the iceberg :)