Talk:Polyphasic sleep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Vilna Gaon clarification and/or veracity?

There's an essay on the web that states his sons claim he only slept 2 hours a day for forty years. Is there any indication from his sons or anywhere that he was using a polyphasic sleep schedule? Also, any verification other than 100+ year old claim from a relative? If anyone knows of any sources to this claim I would really appreciate a link here, then we can edit the page to show the source. Thanks.

I added the source. If you look in the introduction of most any Shulchan Aruch, the first section, Orach Chaim, there is the introduction to the Vilna Gaon's commentary written by his sons, where they say this. (If you want the paragraph number I could look again, it's in the middle somewhere). They also mention that while he'd sleep he would sleeptalk words of Torah. BTW a similar claim is made about the late Lubbavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneersohn, I'd like to verify that and add it. Eliyahu Sw 23:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to Ultrashort Polyphasic Sleep, or split into two separate articles?

Polyphasic sleep means sleeping many times a day with each sleep period being short. For example, a human adult might sleep for nine hours (six 90-minute sleep cycles) in one contiguous block at night, or, alternatively, in six separate 90-minute naps every four hours. The first one is monophasic and the second is polyphasic. Many mammals adopt polyphasic sleep schedules (e.g., cats and lemmings), as do infants and often the elderly. Experiments have shown that humans can live indefinitely with sequential 7-minute sleep and 14-minute (or something like that) waking periods, without the symptoms of sleep deprivation after an adaptation period. (That's from one of the chapters of Stampi's book.) Note that the 7/14 schedule gives a total of eight hours per day of sleep.

Ultrashort polyphasic sleep is a specific subtype of polyphasic sleep the goal of which is the reduction of the total time spent asleep per day, and is what most of this article is about.

Given, the distinction is made between the two in the article, but not until halfway through it. IMHO, disambiguations like that should be at the beginning of articles, not the end.

Should we split this article into two different articles ("Polyphasic sleep" and "Ultrashort polyphasic sleep"), rename the article and add a forward, disambiguat early, or leave it as is? I favor splitting the two and a blurb like the one above to the "Polyphasic sleep" article, with the bulk of the current article in "Ultrashort". 11:52 AM PST Aug. 8, 2006 - Jonathan Toomim

I feel that definately this should be renamed to ultrashort polyphasic and then the contents refocused on that topic. If there is enough out there to start a second article on other methods then that should be done as well. The two are not the same. 74.134.240.59 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why so pessimistic?

the part of the article debunking all the myths seems very POV as if someone were trying to tell us that no one in history ever tried polyphasic sleeping (famous or not). I think this part should be removed or rather there should be a neutrality sign above it.

Remove this valuable section? All polyphasic sleepers want to know whose example to follow. If you got good examples then put them in or correct the errors. Since when Stalinist censorship is a sign of being unbiased? I tried to find some good historic examples but these all recite the same list over and over again without any interesting biographical notes. Go ahead, remove that list, and polynappers will each ya alive. As for me, I will add something on Leonardo. Unfortuntaly, again it comes from polyphasic sleep blogs that are not too reliable
I agree that that one section in particular annoyed me because of it's lack of neutrality. It doesn't cite specific evidence, but takes the bent that that means it must not be true? remove it.
I agree too that I have just read the article couple of minutes ago but I did not get any satisfactory knowledge.
I've just added a peer-reviewed study supporting Polyphasic sleep and removed the sentence that suggested there weren't any peer-reviewed studies on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coeus (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] or [2] (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)

[edit] 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)

ive taken it upon my self to remove this misleading paragraph (again) Craptree 10:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 people 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)

--

This article should be called "Uberman Sleep Schedule" as it is primarily worked on by people who want to cut their sleeping time by applying polyphasic sleep.

The polyphasic sleep article would then focus only on the scientific concept, and as such, would probably not be very popular.

The misnomer is at the root then BUT ... nearly all Ubermen call their sleep "polyphasic sleep". So the separation could do more damage and confusion than benefit.

The success stories should also be separated into "true Uberman", "happy polyphasic" and "happy biphasic". After all, most of the readers are only intersted in "true Uberman" because less sleep is that what they want to accomplish. If they just want better sleep, they would stick with biphasic in longer blocks. And that's the material for a separate article on "good sleep" (as opposed to "short sleep")

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
I remember my father telling me about Da Vinci sleeping 15 minutes every 2 hours many years before internet was created. So it was definitly a rumor back then--Pietrosperoni 20:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop adding in the dozens of links

Let me refer you to ...

Please stop adding in those dozens of blog links. That is all. --Cyde Weys votetalk 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 • contribs)

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 votetalk 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 votetalk 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

I am speaking here as one interested in polyphasic sleep who came here to get information, not as one editing articles and trying to improve wikipedia (although I might do that..) I feel that the list of blogs is indespensible since that is the best amount of information we have on polyphasic sleeping. Until bonifide research comes along, all we've got is anecdote, and that is blogs. So please, please do not remove them in interest of the purity of Wikipedia. In fact, I'd like to see that section expanded, giving a short summary of each person's experience (did they succeed? how long did they try? active blog?). In case you haven't noticed, the rest of the article is not very useful for someone who already knows what polyphasic sleeping is. Those blogs however, once sifted through, *are* useful.

P.S. I LOVE the peer-reviewed idea. We should go through those blogs, and organize them by how much info they offer, don't just make it a list of blogs, make it a list of useful blogs.

I am reading this info with interest too, and I fully agree. I have just ended reading the whole of pavlina blog, and will try to summarise it in 2 lines... until someone will delete it for being unscientific.--Pietrosperoni 20:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding links to personal websites. These are not verifiable claims, are not scientific, and therefore have no place on wiki. Add a statement in the body of the article, "many polyphasic sleepers document there experiences online" and let the reader find it themselves. -J. Ustano Therguy

this has already been settled by vox populi. those blogs are the richest source of information at hand. go to astrology section and do your pro-scientific damage there. at least polyphasic sleep is being truly researched, which you cannot say of the impact of Feaces on your brain (sorry, meant Pieces, or Pisces, however you spell it)

I completely agree, these blogs are the best sources of information on the topic available online at the moment. Readers of this article will definitely be interested in these. Polyphasic sleep could also be considered a new kind of internet phenomenon, I suppose - simply because of the sheer explosion of people trying out these experiments. JoachimK 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the best thing we can do is to link to the following:
Then all the links from the blogs can be moved to them, and it will free up the Wikipedia page for the more encyclopaedic information.
Actually, if we're after reasonably rich and succinct information, we could link to http://www.sleepingschedules.com/  :)
-- TimNelson

I'm in the opinion that blogs are useful, but wikipedia isn't a yahoo group or the rest of the Internet. There are better forums (like, an actual Internet forum? or those websites above) for focused discussion on the topic, and new, curious people who are looking up the article should find those places for "content" rather than wikipedia itself. Please do link to major communities, and limit wikipedia to its proposed mission (ie. an encyclopedia).

Revision as of 12:45, 2006 May 7 >> I think we should all decide what should be included and what should not, using objective data. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 :)

[edit] Any cases of women on the Uberman cycle?

I have only heard cases where men did polyphasic sleeping. Are there any known cases of women trying this?

Certainly. Offhand I can cite the case of Ivy who regularly posts on the Uberman Yahoo group; she seems to be eminently successful if her word can be trusted. --maru (talk) contribs 07:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The author of the E2 (Everything2) article appears to be female. TimNelson 09:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There is also the user Sonja/Sonya on the Uberman Yahoo group. She have added 3 hours core sleep, but seems very successful and able to drop naps.

[edit] Criticism section rewritten

I've just started experimenting with PPS to see what effect it may have on my own horrific sleep patterns, so I'd like to think I'm still neutral on the subject. The criticism section of the page is pretty messy, so I thought I'd give it a quick rewrite.

The "health risk" section lists the downsides of sleep deprivation in detail but does not specifically attribute any particular symptom to PPS, specifically stating that such symptoms are yet undocumented. I would suggest that those who want to learn more about the specifics of sleep deprivation follow the link to the Wiki article on those issues and we not overly clutter this article with those symptoms.

The entire "productivity" section especially describes symptoms of sleep deprivation without specifically addressing whether or not PPS causes such problems, even stating that the study on naps does not directly correlate to PPS. I have merged a piece of this report with the section on alertness, but have otherwise deleted the rest as redundant to the other health concerns. The note about Pavlina's experimenting with sleep times has also been moved a bit.

In the "alertness" section, the article mentions that many people return to monophasic sleep, but this seems to be a criticism as a whole and not something just related to the paragraph on alertness. I've merged this concern with the paragraph on social concerns.

I have left in the claims about upregulation of slow-wave sleep, but there appears to be no documentation or even anecdotal evidence stating why this is the case. Links to that information would be good for keeping the neutral POV (and would also be of personal interest).

The bold submenus for each paragraph also seem to suggest more criticism than current observation supports (the criticism section is the only section with such submenus). I have removed these submenus and generally tried to make the section as a whole more concise. Here is the direct link to what the section looked like beforehand: [3]. Dreamshade 19:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"However, it requires a rigid schedule which makes it unfeasible for most people. It can work well for those engaged in activities which do not permit lengthy periods of sleep."

Seems like a conclusion to me! Perhaps just a single sentence stating that it requires a rigid schedule would be better.

-JBx

[edit] Kennedy and the fork story

I removed this:

===> John F. Kennedy frequenly used 5-minute naps during his Presidency. The story is that he would grasp a metal fork in hand and then lay down on a couch in the Oval Office. When he fall asleep and the muscles in his hand relaxed, the fork clattered to the floor, awakening him from his nap

Kennedy is a known napper and is already listed, while the story with the fork, usu. attributed to Salvador Dali is certainly false (unless JFK tried it once for fun as many of us would probably curiously do)

[edit] Definition of "sucess stories"

Since the number of links is rapidly increasing, I would suggest that we all agreed on something.


Here's my idea.

  1. Success stories: more than 90 days.
  2. Struggling: no news for more than 15 days, but less than 30.
  3. Failures: Either declared to have stopped, or no news for more than 30 days, assuming that in the blog it was not specified that he/she would continue the experiment and update sporadically, given the prolunged time of activity.

For all 2 and 3, I think it's reasonable to include only those who surpassed the 30 days, less than that it cannot even be considered a failure nor a success.


What do you think? I tried to be the more objective and fair I could, even though I am indeed one of the testers.

Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 15:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Just checking, you aren't regarding people who have gone longer than 90 days and have now stopped as "failures"??? Because they certainly are not, because for many other reasons they might be returning. Mathmo 14:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It seems liked polyphasic sleep is being correlated with sleep deprviation

I'm neither an advocate or critic of polyphasic sleep but am doing research. I keep finding that those who are critiquing it refer to studies about sleep deprivation, but, since these studies to my knowledge do not deal with polyphasic sleep specifically, I think they need to be qualified as focusing on sleep deprivation during a monophasic cycle. As far as I've seen reading in this article and in the links it provides, no one has yet cited a negative study of (intentional) polyphasic sleep. If research shows that a monophasic or biphasic sleeper has problems that accompany less than X hours of sleep, I wouldn't expect scientifically that that translates into a polyphasic sleeper whose sum total is less than X having the same problems.

[edit] Testers clarification

I momentarely restored the "Success Stories"

link

But since I am indeed one of the testers there could be a "conflict of interests" for somebody. That is why I think we have to democratically decide what to include, and we need to specify the criteria we used for such a decision.

Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, nor a publisher of original thought. See: WP:NOT, WP:NOR. You are encouraged to link to credible and reliable published studies. —Viriditas | Talk 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I read that. The question is not if we consider these blogs original research/thoughts, but if they can be actually helpful in giving valuable information to the user that wants to know more about the subject. The "reliable and published studies" do not say anything about real-life experience.
Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an objection to linking to one notable blog. —Viriditas | Talk 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would be cocky to say: MY blog yes, or THAT blog no. I think we should keep the valuable blogs that have more than 4 months of recorded and documented activity.
Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 05:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirahã pionneers

I've just read something about a Brazilian tribe that has polyphasic sleep as a social norm. One of the Uberman's schedule's advocates main arguments is that polyphasic sleep would be more natural. If we manage to find a couple more examples of this type, maybe we could include this in the article...

Quote: « Pirahã take short naps (15 minutes to two hours at the extremes) during the day and night. Consequently, it is often very difficult for outsiders to sleep well among the Pirahã, because they talk all night long. »

http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/Info/staff/DE/culturalgrammar.pdf

Rdavout 18:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, indeed. We should see if that fact is documented somewhere else as well. The source seems to be reliable, too (University of Manchester). Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I had heard that about the Pirahã, but as I understand it, 2 hour naps shouldn't count as polyphasic. If they only took 15-30minute naps, then yes. Basically, we need more information as to the exact sleeping pattern of the Pirahã. This should be based on their total sleep in a day. For example, if they still average around 8 hours of sleep per 24 hours time, that's not notable. It's only notable if they get less than, say, 5 hours of sleep a day/night. --Scott Kathrein, 128.255.179.98 20:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... polyphasic means having more than one phase. Biphasic sleepers are people who take two breaks per 24 hour period to sleep, regardless of the total time they sleep. Polyphasic sleep is not defined as getting less than 5 hours of sleep. It's breaking up sleep into multiple pieces. When you say 15-30 minute naps, you're thinking of the Uberman Sleep Schedule. Please don't confuse this with polyphasic sleep. Thank you. 160.10.7.121 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] entrained free running sleep

How can it be?: If it is entrained is not free running and viceversa. --Jclerman 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I do so agree with you. The word entrained does not appear in the (IMO silly) article Free-running sleep. The word melatonin does not appear in either article. I don't care a lot about this article, which people may continue to argue about as long as they like. But we need a good article about freerunning as it is used in serious sleep research. The present one is unusable. Hordaland (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "Upregulate"

The term "upregulate," used in the fourth paragraph of the Criticism section, appears to be a specialized word not found in most dictionaries and unfamiliar to most readers. Someone who understands what the sentence it's used in is meant to say should re-write it using more common words.

--Tedd 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysian prime minister

I've deleted this as it looks like an attempt at satire:

Malaysia's 5th Prime Minister - Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi is also a well known Polyphasic Sleeper, known to follow a rigid schedule of sleeping through Cabinet meetings, important briefings, assemblies and ritually before and after meals. Badawi has honed the art of Polyphasic sleeping, enabling him to extend this state of mind and body for several hours during each session.

Hmmm.. I agree with you, it is likely to be vandalism, however it certainly is very funny, perhaps I should put it the uncyclopedia entry for napping PheonixUK PheonixUK

[edit] Forum Link

The link to my forum on polyphasic sleeping was removed, even though it is the only forum linked to about polyphasic sleeping in general. There is another link on uberman specifically, but not one on general polyphasic. A user of my forum put it back. It was removed because there are only three people signed up right now, but there are only three people signed up right now because it is only nine days old. I posted the link here so a polyphasic forum community could eventually build up. I got two users in the first two days, and the third user posted on the 8th day. At that rate, it shouldn't take long for this to be a useful link for anybody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syriven (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

With regards to it being a useful link, do you have expertise to offer? --Amit 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by expertise. I have been implementing polyphasic sleep for a little over a month, and I've done a lot of research on it. I believe that I have a very good grasp of the subject. Syriven 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I personally don't see any issue with the link - for the time being. Apart from running the forum, I encourage you to use your knowledge to expand this article too - with referenced statements, of course. Thanks. --Amit 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It would appear the purpose of such a link being here would be dubious, as it was/is a forum which is only a few days old. With the primary intention of growing through wikipedia? Mathmo Talk 12:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attributed sleeper's list

This was my first time looking at this article, i thought it was pretty solid, but i had some worries about the list of attributed polyphasic sleepers. Is this a list of attributed polyphasic sleepers becuase there we couldn't find enough verifable polyphasic sleepers? I can't think of any other articles that i have come across that had a list of unverified or disproven people in connection with the subject. I'm just saying this seemed odd to me, what i wanted was a list of poeple who sleep or slept polyphasically, but i ended up reading about people who i never knew had polyphasic sleep attributed to them in the first place,and then i was told that this was either unverified or probably false, so in the end was kind of more confused than informed. If we remove all the unverified or incorectly labeled "polyphasic" people, what does the list consist of? Maybe instead of arguing about including some blogs in a few links, we should look at this core part of the article.
Cheers,
Nate 06:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Napoleon

Years ago I've read that Napoleon had a saying with regards to sleep (alas!, I can't recall the book title). Apparently it went: "Four [hours] for men, five for women, and six for idiots." And apparently he did sleep only four hours a night.

X —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.101.134.101 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Ironically I seem to remember a TV documentary say that his blunders during the battle of Waterloo could in part be attributed to sleep deprivation.--Czar Kirk (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicates

Some persons appear both in "Urban legends" and "Attributed sleepers". --Ysangkok 15:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military usage

I think this article might nuck from contrasting certain sleep schedules used, for example, by submarine crewmen. I don't know the specifics, but I gather that naval schedules sometimes allow people at sea no more than four hours off-duty at a time, which I think would result in significantly less than four hours at a time. Presumably the services wouldn't require this if it was making people less effective, mentally. I wonder if this has anything in common with subject of the article, and if any naval/military sleep research would be useful to include. My name is Boris. Boris B 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Einstein Using Polyphasic Sleep

I have recently done a biography on Einstein for school. As part of my project I claimed that he slept polyphasically. I did my research in respectable places. However I forget where I found the reference to this. Can anybody else prove that he did in fact sleep in this fashion. I would edit it myself, but I am not sure so I thought that it would be better to post it on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew23 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions?

I see that Uberman's sleep schedule is suggested for deletion and can't find a place for comments on the "Articles for Deletion" page, so I'll have to comment here. I would vote for keeping the Uberman's sleep schedule and Everyman sleep schedule articles and rather doing a major rewrite of Polyphasic sleep. The term polyphasic sleep has to mean sleeping in at least two sessions per 24 hours; that's exactly what it says. It does not necessarily include an attempt to live well on less that the usual 7 to 9 hours of sleep. There appears to be a "polyphasic community" which has adopted the term. Fine. But theirs cannot be the only nor even the primary definition of the term Polyphasic sleep.

It would be better and certainly more encyclopedic that Polyphasic sleep should describe normal and abnormal instances of polyphasic sleep (defined as at least two episodes of sleep per 24 hours, regardless of the lengths of those episodes), with a short section about the other use of the term (the one with the aim of reducing total sleep time) with links to at least Uberman, possibly Everyman and others.

How does one get Uberman removed from the to-be-deleted list? --Hordaland (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

An alternative might be to move the bulk of the present article to one named "Intentional polyphasic sleep". --Hordaland (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If polyphasic sleep is only ever performed intentionally, I don't think there's any great need to split the bulk of the article off to an "intentional" page.
I've restored the 95% of the article that was unilaterally moved to the Uberman page - very little of it is specifically about the Uberman system, and the lack of reliable sourcing on the Uberman article gives no suggestion that "Uberman sleep system" is in any way a common shorthand for "intentional polyphasic sleep". --McGeddon (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First: yes, my action was unilateral. One could argue that this Talk page shows that there is consensus about the fact that something should be done about the articles Polyphasic sleep, Uberman's sleep schedule, Everyman sleep schedule and perhaps others. However, there has been no consensus about what should be done. I thought and I hoped that my solution would be a good and acceptable one. I should have realized that doing it that way would raise hackles, no matter how good the idea may have been.

Second: I object to the suggestion that “polyphasic sleep” is only intentional! And also to your claim that “95% of the deleted content was about general polyphasic sleep” by whatever method you define “general” polyphasic sleep.

In PUBMED, I found many mentions of “polyphasic sleep” in papers from 1989 to 2007. Variants on the term include: polyphasic sleep/wake regulation, polyphasic pattern, polyphasic structure of sleep, polyphasic rest-activity cycles (in shift work), polyphasic distribution of sleep and waking, and polyphasic sleep/wakefulness pattern. The word ‘’phase’’ here often applies to the circadian phase at which sleep occurs, rather than referring to an episode of sleep as a “phase”. None of the studies mention the current fad* called polyphasic sleeping.

(*Yes, I realize that the word “fad” is POV, and I do not intend to insert that word into any of the articles under discussion. Here on Talk, my POV is allowed to shine through, as if it hadn’t already.)

I looked primarily at studies involving human subjects, tho there also are many which refer to other animals. The words monophasic and biphasic often appear in the same articles and also, rarely, the word bimodal. The word “bimodal” applied to sleep seems usually to apply to the historical (pre-electricity) human (as well as various birds, lizards and mammals) two bouts of sleep interrupted by a short episode of waking in the middle of the night, also called “interrupted sleep”, usually found in winter when the dark period is long. The word “biphasic” often refers to the one long sleep at night plus the siesta; it appears at two phases in the human circadian cycle.

Some examples (humans only): 1990 Elderly, 1992 Adults, 1993 Babies, 1996, Aging humans, 1998 Shift work, 2001 Narcolepsy in twins, and 2006, Infants

So there we are. I was rather hoping that my search would turn up an alternative term for the sleep of infants and some elderly and sick (for ex.: narcolepsy) people as well as the polyphasic sleep of some animals, all of which may and should be written up on Wikipedia. (A search on “bimodal sleep” showed that that term is not applicable.) Then I could have started a new article using that alternative term and left the present title to the people who consider themselves part of an online “polyphasic community”. It didn’t work.

My conclusion: The term polyphasic sleep must somehow be shared between the aforementioned online community and serious (yes, POV again) sleep research, which has used that term for a long time. --Hordaland (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yisrael Katz

Reference required for Yisrael Katz, mentioned twice in the article by anon 24.107.13.154 who added these bits last month. --Hordaland (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed irrelevant sentence.

A study published in the Journal of Sleep Research in September of 2002 concerning the effects of napping on productivity found that 10-minute naps tended to improve productivity more than shorter naps, which suggests that the onset of stage 1 sleep is not the cause of the increased alertness achieved through brief naps.[1]

Irrelevant, as no one seems to be suggesting naps shorter than 10 minutes. --Hordaland (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

"intentional polyphasic sleep has not been considered by mainstream science" seems to contradict "There is a substantial interest in polyphasic sleep at NASA and among the Military of the United States as well as the Canadian Marine Pilots." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Kirk (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I think.
Claudio Stampi studies it for the sake of solo boat racers in their extreme situation, not for home use.
The U.S. Air Force says: "In general, the shorter each individual nap is, the more frequent the naps should be (the objective remains to acquire a daily total of 8 hours of sleep)."
The Canadian Marine Pilots' handbook says: "Under extreme circumstances where sleep cannot be achieved continuously, research on napping shows that 10- to 20-minute naps at regular intervals during the day can help relieve some of the sleep deprivation and thus maintain minimum levels of performance for several days. However, researchers caution that levels of performance achieved using ultrashort sleep (short naps) to temporarily replace normal sleep, are always well below that achieved when fully rested."
And as the article states: "Astronauts have also occasionally tried similar strategies during extended crises."
These are all extreme or crisis situations, unavoidable. None of these institutions shows an interest in ultrashort napping in ordinary daily living. --Hordaland (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Errr.... But how does that make it not relevant? In daily living there's dozens of times where an instant reaction is needed. Ever try driving down a Los Angeles highway? I'd say the "Maintaining minimum levels of performance" and "are always well below that achieved when fully rested" are pretty unequivocal as to the potential dangers of engaging in this. 67.169.28.238 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debunking

I came across a book about false beliefs in science, including N rays and the idea that some people, including Leonardo da Vinci and Thomas Edison, slept only a few hours a day. I'll try to find the book when I'm next at that library.

His story about Edison was consistent with this article - Edison slept more than he claimed.

For da Vinci, he describes an attempt to follow the 15 min per 4 hour sleep pattern, which goes very well for a short period, but eventually becomes very difficult. He theorizes that da Vinci used it only when he had a lot of work to do in a short period, e.g. when he had corpses to conduct medical examinations on, before they decomposed. --Chriswaterguy talk 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I have removed the {{notability}} tag from the middle of this article. Unless you want to see the whole article deleted (because that's what happens to non-notable articles), please don't replace it. If you have a dispute over the content of this section, then try {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced section}} instead. (Be sure to explain why you add those tags here on the talk page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, the article seems to be largely about Claudio Stampi and not an awful lot about actual research into the phenomenon. JFW | T@lk 10:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What phenomenon? The fact of polyphasic sleep in infants, some old people, some animals and possibly some pre-industrial human societies? Or the 5-year-old internet fad, which claims the term is used (solely) about techniques for staying awake for 20 or more hours a day? --Hordaland (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
We might be able to make something of PMID 9845015 and PMID 10607034. It would be interesting to figure out the difference between true biphasic sleeping and taking a long nap. Finally, polyphasic sleep has been widely used by humans at different times. I understand that the Royal Navy used such a system for at least a century. When you have to be dressed and on deck at least every four hours, you can hardly be asleep for four or more hours in a row. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
About biphasic sleep which includes one nap: I think that the effects of the occasional midday/early afternoon nap, short or long, may be quite different from the regular, habitual ones. A Japanese study found a difference after 3-5 consecutive days with short naps in (usually) non-napping subjects. Currently, research on napping (there's a lot of it) seems focused only on one- or two-day studies in non-napping populations. I'd really like to see some comparisons of the naps and the nocturnal sleep between habitual and occasional nappers. --Hordaland (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove trivia sections

Wikipedia:Trivia sections says: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. ... No section of any Wikipedia article, including trivia sections, should contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like verifiability, neutral point-of-view, or no original research (among others)."

I propose removing these three sections from the article:

  • Attributed polyphasic sleepers
  • Urban legends
  • Polyphasic sleep in fiction

A quick check of the articles about daVinci and some others find no mention of the words 'sleep' or 'nap', thus these "facts" about them are trivial if they even are true. Since the information is largely dubious and unsourced, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia.

Opinions? --Hordaland (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No opinions/reactions in over a week. I'm removing the trivia. --Hordaland (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)