Talk:Sleep hygiene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] No naps?
"Avoiding, if possible, napping during the day" seems to contradict the "Biological need for naps" section of Siesta. —Matthew0028 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- What I've heard is that it's better to take naps elsewhere (e.g. on the sofa in the livingroom) or in bed at the same time each day and not much more than 30 minutes anyway. Qvasi 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The highly notable sleep researcher William C. Dement, who is unarguably one of the leading sleep experts, talks about napping wisely in his book The Promise of Sleep. He feels that naps are a good thing, applied appropriately. I think the "No naps" should be removed, unless somebody can provide credible citation there. --Piquan 21:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original research tag. 11 June
Mere speculation and personal experience. Skinnyweed 10:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC) If you had read the links at the bottom, you would have seen, that it is no OR and no speculation. --83.189.52.34 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reserving the bedroom for only sleep and sexual activity.
Kind of difficult when you only have one room. - FrancisTyers · 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Go out. 222.159.203.188 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Or simply limit yourself to sleep and sexual activity.
- Then replace "bedroom" with "bed", don't lie on your bed without the intent to sleep. Maybe it's even better to have a separate bed/bedroom for sex? ;) Qvasi 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Getting adequate exposure to natural daylight every day?
How exactly does that help one to sleep? There aren't any citations about it; it sounds more like someone wanted people to get out more, so they put that in there. If it is true, could someone please put a citation? - 74.131.193.33
[edit] Removed Mercola
I removed a link an article on Mercola's website entitled "29 Secrets to a Good Night's Sleep." The author of the article is a well-known quack who, as near as anyone can tell, makes up half of his material, and pulls the other half from questionable sources. The article in particular also has suspicious, and possibly even dangerous, advice. If someone feels its important for this link to exist, I'd be open to it returning if the article mentioned that Mercola is widely considered to a quack, or something similar. AaronWL 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
