Expert Says You're Deluding Yourself If You Think You're Productive On Six Hours of Sleep (chicagotribune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Chicago Tribune: Getting through the workday on little sleep is a point of pride for some. But skimping on shuteye could be shortening your life and making you a less than stellar employee, according to Matthew Walker, founder and director of the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley. "Underslept employees tend to create fewer novel solutions to problems, they're less productive in their work and they take on easier challenges at work," said Walker, author of "Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams," out Tuesday. Operating on short sleep -- anything less than seven hours -- impairs a host of brain and bodily functions, said Walker, who is also a professor of neuroscience and psychology. It increases your risk for heart attack, cancer and stroke, compromises your immune system and makes you emotionally irrational, less charismatic and more prone to lying. When asked, "What do you say to people who sacrifice sleep to work?" Walker said: "I often ask the question in return, 'Is the reason you've still got so much to do because you haven't gotten enough sleep and so you're inefficient while you're working?' We know that efficiency and effectiveness are increased when you're getting sufficient sleep and it will take you longer to do the same thing on an under-slept brain, which means you end up having to stay awake longer. So goes the vicious cycle."

Comments

I like being more productive

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always known this, and wished bosses were smarter about it. Meaning, when I'm working on a weeks or months-long project, who cares if I come in an hour later, especially if it means I'm far more productive?

Re:I like being more productive

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially with the current traffic. I need to be at work at 8 in the morning. But to arrive at 8, I've to leave at 5:30 which means I've to get up at 4:45-5:00.

If I could start at 10 in the morning, I would only drive 45 minutes and could leave home at 9 and could sleep until 8:15. I wouldn't even need an alarm clock because I wake up around 7:00. This would mean I could even go out for a walk, or do some exercises. I could spent some family time and even bring my children to school.

But nope, 8:00 is set in stone. And all bosses think like this, which is why the traffic is so dense before 8:00 and why people spend more and more time in their car.

Re:I like being more productive

[sexconker]

I like how the "9-5" job standard is actually "8-5" now.

A few decades ago it really was 9-5. And on that a regular Joe could afford a house, a car or two, a spouse who stayed at home, 2-3 kids, a dog, and retirement.

Wow, that's clueless with the power of an Ox

[rsilvergun]

the folks I know losing sleep to work are doing it because the wage stagnation that started in the 80s and's been going strong since decimated their wages so that they work two jobs to make ends meet. Even the folks who don't have two jobs put in extra hours in a desperate bid to move up because companies stopped giving cost of living raises in the mid 2000s.

Sure, the extra work they do might not be the best but good enough is always good enough. People are losing sleep because they're being taken advantage of and made to work longer hours. As an added benefit if you're doing the work of 1.5 employees that's less people your company has to hire, meaning more competition for your job, driving your wages down further and leading to you working harder. See where this thing's going?

Experts say

[JohnFen]

Experts actually say that if you think everybody requires the same number of hours of sleep, you're deluding yourself.

The consequences would be worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Not getting 8 hours sleep a night has nothing to do with work. It has to do with having a life outside work. In order to get 8 hours sleep a night I'd have to be in bed by 7:30pm and asleep by 8:00pm, because I get up at 4:00am, do physical training for a competitive sport, then go to work by 8:30am. If I make no stops on the way home from work I'm home at 5:30pm. 2.5 hours is damned little time during a weekday to get things done you need to get done at home to prepare for the next day. I can't give up training, and I certainly can't afford anything without working. Even if I gave up my training I'm supposed to call 'work, eat, sleep, repeat' a life? That'd kill me faster than getting 6 hours sleep a night (plus a short nap at lunchtime). It's all well-and-good for some researcher to waggle a finger at everyone and tell them "You're going to DIE, SOON, if you don't get 8 hours sleep a night every night!", but it's not realistic unless you're either independently wealthy and don't have to work, or are so dull that work/sleep/eat/repeat is somehow enough for you.

Re:The consequences would be worse

[Anonymous Coward]

You're getting 6-7 hours of leisure time in the day, but you are dedicating 4 of those hours to working out in the morning. You are choosing to use your time split up during the day, but you still get that free time. Stop treating your morning workout as a unavoidable chore, and realize that's what your hobby is.

That doesn't sound so bad.

Re: In all fairness....

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security or comfort deserve neither.

Reagan was a terrible president

[rsilvergun]

a momentary blip in oil production shouldn't have caused 50 years of declining wages. Trickle down economics did. Here's a good list of reasons Reagan stunk on ice. And yes, I'm aware Clinton carried on Reagan's legacy to win the presidency. I never said I liked him either. A Republican's a Republican. Even with a D next to their name.

Re:In all fairness....

[sls1j]

I'd love the unintended consequences of this. We'd reign in foreign meddling pretty quickly.