There has been a ton a research done on sleep patterns in people. Lots of people have the issue with not being able to get back to sleep once they wake up in the middle of the night. Many causes. One common one in the US is alcohol consumption. It really helps you get to sleep, but it does cause sleep issues (less REM sleep, plus dehydration if you don't drink lots of water before you go to bed). One thing you can try is to take a 2 mg melatonin pill (available at the grocery or drug store) when you wake up in the middle of the night. It may help you get back to sleep, and will probably make you have more vivid dreams. It will not keep you asleep though, the way a sleeping pill would.
On the foggy after too much sleep, I think that happens to almost everyone. For me it happens if I go well over 8 hours. It may be that you have gone back into a deeper sleep mode right before you then get up. Some people have called it sleep drunkenness because oversleeping tends to make you very groggy. It may be because you release lots of the sleep transmitters in your brain from oversleeping.
My dog is on a ketogenic diet, and has never had more energy, or been more active even though she is 10. She also is somewhat wired from the lower calories and the high fat content. In many ways she has never seemed so healthy, or been so hyper. But she is not able to go to sleep at night easily anymore because she is so hyperactive. She just wants to keep playing. So yes, you can have trouble sleeping, and still be doing well. She seems to make up for it with daytime naps.
Chris, you are clearly picking up your talking points from the likes of Milton Friedman with his bullshit line about preferring freedom over fairness. He claimed falsely that "freedom" was preferable because someone that he might not agree with would have to determine what was fair. Of course the same exact thing holds for determining what freedom is. Both freedom and fairness are human concepts and are not based on any natural phenomenon. They are human constructs, and both must therefore be defined by people. Freedom for the Koch brothers means literally freedom from regulations that protect our water and air from their pollution. Freedom in the modern Republican and DLC Democrat lexicon means ability of corporations to do whatever makes the most money, no matter how much death (tobacco sales) or destruction (mountaintop removal) is done to make the money. Freedom for them means freedom from laws that protect workers and consumers. No thanks. I don't want any of that type of freedom. It is a total deception to call it freedom when what you mean is that corporations don't want to have to abide by any rules that protect people or the environment.
Can't say about lifespan, but I assume it also relates to the endemic diseases there, and parasites as well as dietary effects. There are tons of possibilities for genetic differences to allow for varying amounts of sleep in different people. They can do a pretty good whole genome sequencing pretty quickly now, so I expect more of the genetic and epigenetic differences between groups of people will be much better documented in the next 5 to 10 years.
Are you a biologist? I am. Show me yours sources that say your body does not sense the level of sugar in your blood. I was not saying that your body does not work just fine on a ketogenic diet, how could you get that from what I wrote? Do you even read before you write something in response? I was talking about why you tend to sleep less.
This is fairly recent research. There is a long way to go before we know exactly what is going on. At this point I would err on the side of safety. Neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer and Parkinson disease involve the buildup of proteins that did not get properly broken down and removed from the brain (plaques and tangles).
I have my dog, who has cancer, on a ketogenic diet. It actually causes you to sleep less because your body wants you to go out and find more food because your body senses there isn't enough sugar coming in. It is harder to sleep on the ketogenic diet, but that doesn't mean you don't need the sleep. It would be interesting to see if running your brain on ketone bodies produces fewer waste products, it certainly is a possibility.
This is not science, this is anecdotal. Neuroscience has shown recently that the brain moves waste products, excess transmitters and toxic products out during sleep via the paravascular glymphatic system. Just because people can get away without lots of sleep, especially when younger, does not mean that there are not long term health consequences from doing so over extended periods of time.
I just bought Base Nation last week and was reading it. Good book. It is why I brought the subject up. Also re-reading James Risen's Pay Any Price. Everyone should read it.
You know it is about money and geopolitical control and force projection, not about defending anyone. No one is going to attack Japan, and no one is going to attack Germany. As you must have noticed by now, virtually all the major attacking in the world is done by the US of A. We start most of the larger scale wars, including the one now being fought by ISIS. That fight was made in the USA. The US is in the dual business of destabilization followed by monetization of the conflict. We love to arm rebels and then turn around and fight the rebels we just armed. So please stop with the US is defending everyone nonsense.
China is one of our biggest trading partners, so it is quite funny that you say they have no allies. We don't defend anyone, except maybe Kuwait in 1991, but we were just defending the oil there. We spread the American Empire and you know it. Who are we defending in Syria? In Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Yemen? In Somalia? What are tens of thousands of troops doing in Germany, defending them? In Japan, defending them? Come on, don't be silly.
Don't see how you change the system with the wrong people in power. They feed the system, and it feeds them. Getting intelligent people in charge who wants to change the system is a start, then the people that elect them are going to have to help those in power push for change. Because rich folks don't want change. They like things just the way they are right now.
You make a really good argument for national health care coverage from birth to death, like in the rest of the developed world. Removing the two words "over 65" from the original Medicare bill would pretty much fix the problem. Pay for it by shutting down most overseas military bases, which do nothing for the American people (unless you get one of those cost-plus no bid base building contracts).
Great, but why the hoopla over billions of profits for the pharmaceutical industry? The gouging of consumers with higher and higher drug prices is not a plus. I am not enthralled with the prospect of more huge profits for the drug companies. That money comes from people, many of whom really can't afford to jack up the profits for the wealthy people running big pharma.
How do you test your theories in economics? You mean like imposing austerity in Greece to see how bad you can screw it up, and compare that with a country that does not implement austerity measures?
Khallow, your definition of science as any systematic study is incorrect, because to astrologists, they think they are doing a systematic study. As a scientist, I think a more rigorous definition would be a systematic study based on the scientific method which includes falsifiability as per Popper. How do you falsify a theory in economics? You can argue against the tenets put forward, but you can't do controlled experiments in an attempt to see if the null hypothesis is true or false.
If you broaden your definition of science to include all fields of human investigation, sure. But if you mean a science like biochemistry or physics, where you do controlled experiments, then no, it is not a hard science. Some people differentiate "hard" from "soft" sciences. OK, by that definition economics could be considered a soft science. But as the author of the article points out, there is much more political bias in "economics research" than in most sciences (where some bias is often unavoidable, but still can be manageable with proper controls). Really, economics is the study of trends in economic activity, but often strays into making pronouncements on political policy, which seems an awful lot more like politics than science.
Economics is not a science. It is a study of human behavior like Psychology, and as the article points out, it has heavy political overtones. There was no Nobel Prize in Economics until 1969. Maybe it is time to retire that particular prize.
How would you do controlled experiments in "economics research"? Without controlled experiments, you are just looking at trends, which is more like medical epidemiology than a hard science. No one will suggest that epidemiology tells you how or why something occurs, just that their "might be some relationship".
Couldn't agree more Roger. Economics is not a field of scientific inquiry. It is far more prone to fudging than biochemistry, or my field, neuroscience. Any scientist can manipulate or cherry pick the data, but in the end it will only hurt their reputation and so most experienced researchers go to great lengths to make sure their experimental results are reproducible. I am notorious in the lab for insisting on more repetition of experiments that have worked well a number of times. Nobody likes doing repetitive and tedious experiments but it is part of the job.
I do however agree that fudging in science may be increasing, but that seems more due to the pressures of scarce funding. If science were funded as well as the military is, there would be no temptation for fudging on anyone's part.
Good one. But I always assume in situations such as "Economics Research" that there are all sorts of incentives to cook the books so to speak. Writing what policy makers want to hear will get you hired on as a White House advisor, where you can join the economic team that uses the flawed data to implement horrible economic plans of the type that the Republicans and DLC Democrats have been shoving down our throats since Reagan. So I am not entirely sure that those were just "honest mistakes".
Slashdot Mirror
There has been a ton a research done on sleep patterns in people. Lots of people have the issue with not being able to get back to sleep once they wake up in the middle of the night. Many causes. One common one in the US is alcohol consumption. It really helps you get to sleep, but it does cause sleep issues (less REM sleep, plus dehydration if you don't drink lots of water before you go to bed). One thing you can try is to take a 2 mg melatonin pill (available at the grocery or drug store) when you wake up in the middle of the night. It may help you get back to sleep, and will probably make you have more vivid dreams. It will not keep you asleep though, the way a sleeping pill would.
On the foggy after too much sleep, I think that happens to almost everyone. For me it happens if I go well over 8 hours. It may be that you have gone back into a deeper sleep mode right before you then get up. Some people have called it sleep drunkenness because oversleeping tends to make you very groggy. It may be because you release lots of the sleep transmitters in your brain from oversleeping.
My dog is on a ketogenic diet, and has never had more energy, or been more active even though she is 10. She also is somewhat wired from the lower calories and the high fat content. In many ways she has never seemed so healthy, or been so hyper. But she is not able to go to sleep at night easily anymore because she is so hyperactive. She just wants to keep playing. So yes, you can have trouble sleeping, and still be doing well. She seems to make up for it with daytime naps.
Chris, you are clearly picking up your talking points from the likes of Milton Friedman with his bullshit line about preferring freedom over fairness. He claimed falsely that "freedom" was preferable because someone that he might not agree with would have to determine what was fair. Of course the same exact thing holds for determining what freedom is. Both freedom and fairness are human concepts and are not based on any natural phenomenon. They are human constructs, and both must therefore be defined by people. Freedom for the Koch brothers means literally freedom from regulations that protect our water and air from their pollution. Freedom in the modern Republican and DLC Democrat lexicon means ability of corporations to do whatever makes the most money, no matter how much death (tobacco sales) or destruction (mountaintop removal) is done to make the money. Freedom for them means freedom from laws that protect workers and consumers. No thanks. I don't want any of that type of freedom. It is a total deception to call it freedom when what you mean is that corporations don't want to have to abide by any rules that protect people or the environment.
Can't say about lifespan, but I assume it also relates to the endemic diseases there, and parasites as well as dietary effects. There are tons of possibilities for genetic differences to allow for varying amounts of sleep in different people. They can do a pretty good whole genome sequencing pretty quickly now, so I expect more of the genetic and epigenetic differences between groups of people will be much better documented in the next 5 to 10 years.
Are you a biologist? I am. Show me yours sources that say your body does not sense the level of sugar in your blood. I was not saying that your body does not work just fine on a ketogenic diet, how could you get that from what I wrote? Do you even read before you write something in response? I was talking about why you tend to sleep less.
This is fairly recent research. There is a long way to go before we know exactly what is going on. At this point I would err on the side of safety. Neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer and Parkinson disease involve the buildup of proteins that did not get properly broken down and removed from the brain (plaques and tangles).
I have my dog, who has cancer, on a ketogenic diet. It actually causes you to sleep less because your body wants you to go out and find more food because your body senses there isn't enough sugar coming in. It is harder to sleep on the ketogenic diet, but that doesn't mean you don't need the sleep. It would be interesting to see if running your brain on ketone bodies produces fewer waste products, it certainly is a possibility.
This is not science, this is anecdotal. Neuroscience has shown recently that the brain moves waste products, excess transmitters and toxic products out during sleep via the paravascular glymphatic system. Just because people can get away without lots of sleep, especially when younger, does not mean that there are not long term health consequences from doing so over extended periods of time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
I just bought Base Nation last week and was reading it. Good book. It is why I brought the subject up. Also re-reading James Risen's Pay Any Price. Everyone should read it.
You know it is about money and geopolitical control and force projection, not about defending anyone. No one is going to attack Japan, and no one is going to attack Germany. As you must have noticed by now, virtually all the major attacking in the world is done by the US of A. We start most of the larger scale wars, including the one now being fought by ISIS. That fight was made in the USA. The US is in the dual business of destabilization followed by monetization of the conflict. We love to arm rebels and then turn around and fight the rebels we just armed. So please stop with the US is defending everyone nonsense.
China is one of our biggest trading partners, so it is quite funny that you say they have no allies. We don't defend anyone, except maybe Kuwait in 1991, but we were just defending the oil there. We spread the American Empire and you know it. Who are we defending in Syria? In Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Yemen? In Somalia? What are tens of thousands of troops doing in Germany, defending them? In Japan, defending them? Come on, don't be silly.
China has zero military bases outside of their country, they are spending their money more wisely (well, except maybe those ghost cities they built).
Don't see how you change the system with the wrong people in power. They feed the system, and it feeds them. Getting intelligent people in charge who wants to change the system is a start, then the people that elect them are going to have to help those in power push for change. Because rich folks don't want change. They like things just the way they are right now.
Agreed. I wonder if it is possible to ever go back to having intelligent people running the government. The trend seems to have been the obverse.
from the humorous comment about how "[t]he ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding". They are such kidders.
You make a really good argument for national health care coverage from birth to death, like in the rest of the developed world. Removing the two words "over 65" from the original Medicare bill would pretty much fix the problem. Pay for it by shutting down most overseas military bases, which do nothing for the American people (unless you get one of those cost-plus no bid base building contracts).
Great, but why the hoopla over billions of profits for the pharmaceutical industry? The gouging of consumers with higher and higher drug prices is not a plus. I am not enthralled with the prospect of more huge profits for the drug companies. That money comes from people, many of whom really can't afford to jack up the profits for the wealthy people running big pharma.
How do you test your theories in economics? You mean like imposing austerity in Greece to see how bad you can screw it up, and compare that with a country that does not implement austerity measures?
Khallow, your definition of science as any systematic study is incorrect, because to astrologists, they think they are doing a systematic study. As a scientist, I think a more rigorous definition would be a systematic study based on the scientific method which includes falsifiability as per Popper. How do you falsify a theory in economics? You can argue against the tenets put forward, but you can't do controlled experiments in an attempt to see if the null hypothesis is true or false.
If you broaden your definition of science to include all fields of human investigation, sure. But if you mean a science like biochemistry or physics, where you do controlled experiments, then no, it is not a hard science. Some people differentiate "hard" from "soft" sciences. OK, by that definition economics could be considered a soft science. But as the author of the article points out, there is much more political bias in "economics research" than in most sciences (where some bias is often unavoidable, but still can be manageable with proper controls). Really, economics is the study of trends in economic activity, but often strays into making pronouncements on political policy, which seems an awful lot more like politics than science.
Economics is not a science. It is a study of human behavior like Psychology, and as the article points out, it has heavy political overtones. There was no Nobel Prize in Economics until 1969. Maybe it is time to retire that particular prize.
How would you do controlled experiments in "economics research"? Without controlled experiments, you are just looking at trends, which is more like medical epidemiology than a hard science. No one will suggest that epidemiology tells you how or why something occurs, just that their "might be some relationship".
Did you think your comment made sense? Think again.
Couldn't agree more Roger. Economics is not a field of scientific inquiry. It is far more prone to fudging than biochemistry, or my field, neuroscience. Any scientist can manipulate or cherry pick the data, but in the end it will only hurt their reputation and so most experienced researchers go to great lengths to make sure their experimental results are reproducible. I am notorious in the lab for insisting on more repetition of experiments that have worked well a number of times. Nobody likes doing repetitive and tedious experiments but it is part of the job.
I do however agree that fudging in science may be increasing, but that seems more due to the pressures of scarce funding. If science were funded as well as the military is, there would be no temptation for fudging on anyone's part.
Good one. But I always assume in situations such as "Economics Research" that there are all sorts of incentives to cook the books so to speak. Writing what policy makers want to hear will get you hired on as a White House advisor, where you can join the economic team that uses the flawed data to implement horrible economic plans of the type that the Republicans and DLC Democrats have been shoving down our throats since Reagan. So I am not entirely sure that those were just "honest mistakes".