Talk:Sleep/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Sleep deprivation

There is already a separate article on sleep deprivation. Some of the information here should probably be moved there, with only a summary left on this page, if anyone is up to the job. (20 November 2005)

Stating that "The amount of sleep deprivation that leads to death in humans is unknown" is a slightly misleading statement. If it is unknown, then it is also possible that it cannot lead to death (though I don't believe this myself although I do think the limit is probably extreme). I propose the language be modified to: "It is unknown whether sleep deprivation can lead to death in humans." 128.113.200.207 22:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
...or perhaps better, "It has not been proven that sleep deprivation leads to death in humans."Sfahey 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That the amount that is needed to result in death is unknown does not mean it's possible that it doesn't lead to death. It just varies depending upon the health of the individual, what he's eating, doing, his environment, and so on. Unlike other diseases where you can gather mass statistics on average death times because they are incurable, sleep deprivation is easily cured by sleep, and I doubt any scientific trials have been done. The only cases I can see death by sleep occuring are torture (no records), or outside of the confines of medical treatment (someone on their own who stops sleeping) in which case pinpointing the amount is vague and difficult. Tyciol 06:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

prevalence of sleep disorders

"The increasing prevalence of sleep disorders is likely a function . . . of more sophisticated diagnostic tests . . ."

Do you really mean that the better the tests the larger the proportion of diseased people? Please, replace "sleep" for "avian flu": is the prevalence dependent on how sophisticated are the tests for the virus?Jclerman 16:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

CAFFEINE statement

"While not used in hospitals in the United States, it seems it is commonly used in Germany and Switzerland."

Please give a peer-reviewed verifiable source for this statement. The one referred to (in German) seems to be a personal opinion, i.e., without any reference and without a traceable author. Jclerman 17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I edited it because when I removed it...the original poster kept putting it back in. Remove it if you like... I don't think it adds anything. I tried to remove it... but was accused of forcing my standards on everyone else... I just made it readable (aside from the misspelling). MrSandman 00:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, don't give up your standards, unless your statements are proven otherwise on basis of verifiable and reliable sources. Today "user 80.129.140.252" has indicated in an edit to the article: "(→Notes - german 'RR' is Riva-Rocci (method of measuring blood pressure, used as synonym with blood pressure), not respiratory resistance!)". This loss in translation is verifiable by a web search. Such a search shows two kind of articles: (a) German articles in which "RR-Abfalls" is measured in "mmHg", (b) English articles propagated "virus-like" by many commercial sites which copied the Wikipedia article with the implied "translation" of respiratory rate. Jclerman 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

More: The following statement (a) contains a word [sopophoric] not in the M-W Dictionary, and (b) is ambiguous: "This effect or treatment is likely the result of an increased prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea in the elderly, and not an unknown sopophoric effect of caffeine." Jclerman 18:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The word, of course, is "soporific". When I find a misspelling, I simply correct it. The intent of the admittedly ambiguous sentence I believe referred to caffeine being of benefit to the elderly because THEY have an increased incidence of sleep apnea. This ambiguity has also been restated. Sfahey 23:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Today, "user 80.129.140.252" has indicated in an edit to the article: "(→Notes - german 'RR' is Riva-Rocci (method of measuring blood pressure, used as synonym with blood pressure, not respiratory resistance!))". See result of a web search above. Jclerman 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Caffeine and sleep

I removed the comment about coffee being a sleep aid "no more than 15 minutes before bed".... The suggestion was that coffee "increases blood flow to relevant areas of the brain"..... So does cocaine... so does methamphetamine... that does not make it a good sleep aid. Throughout the article it explains how caffeine inhibits adenosine... which makes it have strong stimulant properties....and the next sentence someone suggests it is a good sleep aid.. and they administer it in german hospitals. I'm sorry... but it just doesn't fly. If you can give a reference from a peer reviewed journal explaining this... than ok... but just linking back to another Wiki article isn't the way it's done when the info is debatable.

MrSandman 14:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

then, if you have so much greedy lust for your Truth... then you are kindly invited to correct all the errors in the german wikipedia. as i point out, start with de:Kaffee. and my girlfriend - who actually works in a nursing home - confirmed that coffee is used as a sleeping aid. --Keimzelle 14:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
now i've found something:
--Keimzelle 15:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well... I don't speak or read german. But I am a sleep researcher. However... what you just said sounds interesting..... the use of coffee in nursing homes as a sleep aid.....that is different than what you said before. The problem is... even with your link (which I can't read)... helping someone breath does not facilitate sleep... sleep is controlled by various areas of the brain... and often includes a decrease in arousal. Caffeine INCREASES AROUSAL, which is NOT conducive to sleep. While it increases respiratory rate... you know... because it is a stimulant... it does not induce sleep. If you want... I could give you about 100 peer reviewed journal references that can back this up... it is no mystery.. it isn't my "truth"... it is just the way it is. Because people use it in a nursing home in Germany... doesn't mean it promotes sleep. As you said... it increases respiratory rate... which is true... it also increases heart rate... and increases sympathetic nervous system tone. Google "sympathetic nervous system" and you will see where I am coming from.

Are you seriously saying that caffeine is not a stimulant? ...and if your are saying that caffeine is a stimulant.. how do you rectify the fact that stimulants do not promote sleep... hence the term "stimulants".....

MrSandman 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I could do some first-hand research. Coffee or not coffee 10 minutes before sleep; and to avoid my finding out if I'm drinking coffee or just plain water I'll pour some gallons of wine down my throat. Science demands some tribute. Err, for a scientist with several years of research activity you seem to have a rather unconventional writing style. --Keimzelle 17:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wake/sleep = catabolic/anabolic is problematic

The beginning of this page is very problematic. This needs a lot of work...I made a few changes regarding sleep deprivation...and cleaned up the rest a bit... but I am debating on doing a complete rewrite. Equating sleep with this anabolism hypothesis is not the only supported heuristic model of sleep. This definition should include more theories regarding the "function" of sleep... as opposed to misleading the reader...which is what I believe this article does in some cases. As a sleep researcher... I feel the need to correct this. MrSandman


This equation or similarity if frequently stressed in the article of June 2006, but it simplifies what's going on and might lead to some wrong conclusions. For example, a reader might think that we are like a battery, recharging during the night and only using energy during the day. But what do you think happens after breakfast - anabolism of course. Your body is storing some of the nutrients you just ate for later use. I agree with Jfdwolff below. This simple equation of sleep = anabolism should be qualified or deleted. jasu

To Larry Sanger: You are trying to be a guardian of the neutral point of view, but on the way you risk being a roadblock on the way towards education. By adding "Researchers do not know what is the role of sleep", you inserted a blatant fallacy into this text. I could forgive a random surfer or visitor. But it is Larry Sanger who should stand for integrity and progressive nature of Wikipedia. Who does not know the role of sleep? Vertes? If you said "Researchers do not know all the function of sleep" you might be closer to the truth because there are many in the research community who still push on with some of their own theories. If a simple experiment: learn the Towers of Hanoi, get sleep or do not get sleep, check the performance, clearly indicates deficit in procedural learning for sleep deprived, no reasonable person would question the role of sleep in learning. Now multiply it by dozens of experiments, hundreds of researchers, hundreds of papers, ... do you still have doubts. Naturally, go on the net search and you will find thousands of pages with hundreds of theories, but that's not what should make up your mind. Imagine searching the net about the theory of evolution in the 1860s (the most valuable findings in sleep&learning research date to late 1980s and the 1990s). This time I apologize for inevitably harsh words: you are not helping Wikipedia with this. If you are not sure about some texts, put your doubts in Talk or sign in under a different name! -- Piotr Wozniak

I think the wording could be better--I agree with Piotr that it is well established that consolidation of memory occurs during sleep, but that by no means should elevate this simple fact to a "purpose". I'll change the text to something I think better reflects current knowledge; feel free to edit. --LDC

Piotr, making an edit that requires you to add essential text to your article is not a roadblock, it's one of the most important kinds of edits one can make, for purposes of keeping people honest. Now, last I heard, it was an enormous mystery to sleep researchers what the purpose of sleep is, though there were a number of theories. I am willing to concede that in the intervening years (ten?), researchers have concluded that sleep does have at least one specific, well-demonstrated function; but in that case, it would be a good idea to say who the (main) researchers are who have demonstrated this, how it was demonstrated, and so forth--all the details you (finally and helpfully) mention above. As you can see, I stand behind this particular edit 100%. Now I hope that you will edit the article and enlighten us in a way that will shame me into silence. I'll be watching. --LMS

    • Naturally, shaming Larry into silence would be a very lowly purpose. I put some links to popular scientific articles at sleep and learning. If they survive future edits, any reasonable person can draw his or her own conclusions about the role of sleep (don't we all pause why should we waste 1/3 of our lives on a seemingly useless state of unawareness and vulnerability? -- the greatest minds in the research community have a very simple answer to that: optimizing memory storage in condition of information excess). If anyone is interested in my own popular scientific summary and practical applications of knowledge about sleep, see: http://www.supermemo.com/articles/sleep.htm. I will try to explain why I do not take on the challenge of arguing my case at Piotr Wozniak -- Piotr Wozniak

Not just humans sleep - other mammals certainly do and other animals have similar rest states. Anyone want to tackle including these. -rmhermen

According to what I've read in body-building literature, sleep is necessary for muscle growth and repair. Sleep probably serves numerous other physical purposes, which should be included in the article. - TS

    • Why should we "disconnect" the brain in order to "regenerate" muscle? It is like shutting down the government in order to fix a highway. If muscle impulsation had to be cut off, it could have been done by "paralysis" at the level of the medulla oblongata. If you mean GH, it can also be released without getting "dumb" for 8 hours. You can rest your muscles ok without getting any sleep. The belief that sleep is needed for muscle regenration comes from the fact that the organisms puts various defense mechanisms against sleep deprivation that would slow down registering new generalized and non-interfering memories to a crawl. Those defenses provide for a breakdown of the endocrine anabolic regulation which ulimately leads to "feeling awful" and "unrefreshed" and "broken down" -- Piotr Wozniak

But sleep doesn't only "disconnect" the brain--it also involves physical immobility. It is quite likely true that physical regeneration of muscle is also an important use of sleep. I'm not sure it even makes sense to speak of "purpose" when talking about biological systems--that implies a telos, and biological systems aren't like that. Human-designed things have purpose: we put wings on a plane in order to provide lift. But evolved things are different; things often have many different and unrelated uses. Things that first appeared for one use (like jawbones) often evolve into something completely different (impedance-matching sound conductors). Writing about the role of sleep in learning is a worthy cause; but calling it "the purpose" of sleep is almost certainly wrong. --LDC

  • You can easily verify the evolutionary purpose of sleep by removing the demand for its individual functions. You bet, once you do not need to rewire your neural network, you will lose the need to lose consciousness. And the muscular system will help itself. As I said earlier, the "disconnect" (if indeed needed) can happen at a lower level. Would you argue that we cannot say "the role of heart is pumping the blood" only because there are other regulatory benefits of its action? -- Piotr Wozniak (note that immobility is also a result of the disconnect; not to let the muscles rest but to prevent you from injuring yourself while motor centers are in action in REM)
The first sentence above is quite demonstrably false, since no such experiment is even possible with current technology. No matter how much you protest that you know "the purpose" of sleep (and by the way, I assume you do understand that in English this implies the only purpose) you have not, and cannot, do the experiments necessary to verify that claim, so it is irresponsible and unscientific to make it. The brain is millions of times more complex than present science is even capable of investigating, and all sweeping claims about its major functions are unverified theories at this point. Even the very detailed stuff we think we know about language and perception from the likes of Chomsky, Pinker, and others is not scientifically verifiable yet. Your articles are good stuff, and would be appropriate here in one of two ways: either as they are now, clearly marked as commentary, or else modified to hedge the wild unsubstantiated claims. --LDC

Teleonomy is a concept in biology that deals with the apparent goal-directedness of biological systems. From a teleonomic perspective it is perfectly correct to speak of purposes in biology. See http://www.freedomsnest.com/mayr_biophil.html for more. - TS

Yes, I suppose that's as rational as speaking of "selfish genes", as long as it's clear that these are specialized uses of the words. My remaining objection, then, is to speaking of "the purpose" rather than "one purpose". --LDC


Sleep does not mean physical immobility as stated above. Only in REM sleep does the inhibition of striated muscle occur, and even then there are frequent bodily movements in REM sleep. Bodily movements are common in all other sleep stages. As a technologist in a Sleep Disorders Center, I have watched thousands of sleep studies and have yet to see anyone sleep without moving. A common example of motor activity in sleep, accessible to those who are not sleep technologists - sleepwalking. --rpsgt244

---

Even though bed is relevant to sleep, writing about the fact that we sleep in bed in the sleep entry is as relevant as explaining that the sky is blue in the NASA entry. Naturally, this could change if this was Kidipedia for our young ones, but Wikipedia wants to focus on providing concise encyclopedic information (which can naturally be extended by commentary entries such as "ways of spending the night" where longer explanations or even a scientific discourse of sleeping positions could be placed). 62.21..

Sleep is the process in which humans and other animals periodically rest, unconscious and unaware of the surrounding world. Sleep occurs cyclically, roughly every 24 hours is equally obvious. It is often good to include those texts for completeness sake. The blueness of the sky is also an interesting phenomenon that should be explained somewhere (but not in the NASA entry). - Patrick 13:30 20 May 2003 (UTC)

p.s. it is not true that circadian cycle lasts 24.3 hours. It may last 23 hours or 27 hours depending on the individual! Hence the concept of ASPS and DSPS. 62.21..

I have no idea what this means, so I'm moving it here.

==Facts== *Often times, the lips are most responsive when met with another pair of lips. This will sometimes cause the sleeper to jolt suddenly, as maybe a defense system.

-Montrealais

Lol. I think they mean a certain cartoon character.--Fangz 00:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too much sleep?

Sometimes we use the phrase "too much sleep", when we sleep for, say, 15 hours (following serious sleep deprivation, of course) and wake up with a monstrous headache. But is there really such a thing as too much sleep? --Furrykef 00:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the headache is due to dehydration rather than excess sleep. --Kevin 01:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

The too much sleep idea is supposed to be when a person distorts their sleep cycle, thus waking in the middle of a cycle, throwing off the whole process. 70.111.251.203 13:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Other definitions

Surely this article should have something on sleep as in "a crust of dried tears or mucus normally forming around the inner rim of the eye during sleep." [1] -- Livajo 23:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree - came looking for it earlier but couldn't find it. Not sure how to work it into the article, though. violet/riga (t) 18:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Cite

Can someone mark a citation to this....

The state of sleep is common to all known life forms, plant and animal. It is the fundamental metabolic state of life itself. To ask why organisms sleep is equivalent to asking why organisms live at all. To understand sleep one must instead ask the correct question: Why do we awaken? The state of wakefulness is a much different metabolic state; it is a catabolic state, hence the organism can only survive for a certain amount of time before it must return to the anabolic state, otherwise it will die. Roadrunner 03:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RoadRunner; I wrote it. It's a conclusion I reached after some thought about the nature of sleep. GeneMosher 05:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the part about the 'why do we awaken' is really philosophical, and it really made me think. Can I use that as a quote in my high school essay? --70.56.195.2 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Update to 2005 ?

Can the contributor who added "As of 2004, it is as yet unclear exactly what the mechanism which causes death in rats" check out any updates the last year. Jay 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


In response to the request for a citation on “state of sleep is common…”.

In fact, I don’t think there can be a citation, it is just not correct. In fact it indicates a lack of clarity on the difference between circadian rhythms and sleep. While circadian rhythmicity is found in some single cell organisms, in plants, and in animals, this is distinct from sleep. Plants do not sleep, although they have a circadian rhythm. The circadian system controls patterns of wakefulness and rest. There is some debate about how far down the phylogenetic ladder "sleep" goes. In mammals, sleep is defined by electroencephalographic criteria. To extrapolate this downward- into animals that lack brain architecture to allow EEG characterization, we have come up with a set of behavioral criteria to define sleep (including homeostatic response, rapid reversibility, characteristic posture, elevated response threshold to stimuli etc). While I think most/all sleep researchers will agree that "behavioral rest" is present throughout the animal kingdom (at least mammals through flies- I don't know about worms), there are certainly those who will argue that this does not represent "sleep". However, acceptance seems to be growing, as researchers studying behavoral rest in the fruit fly are now being braver and calling it sleep (backed by some EEG data...). There is a big problem with trying to characterize sleep solely based on observed activity/inactivity or anabolism/catabolism. For example, dolphins have unihemispheric sleep (sleep with half the brain) and continue to swim while doing so. The entry has other factual errors, for example, orexin levels rise slowly throughout the waking period (not rapidly) and then plummet at onset of sleep. If someone else doesn't fix this first, (as there appear to be many people at least talking about this section) then I will be happy to do some re-writing, with extensive scientific citations. J. Faraco

Please do. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Energy consumption

Is it true that the human body consumes/burns more energy sleeping than while waking (not doing any strenuous work of course) ? Jay 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From [2]: "the amount of energy saved by sleeping for even eight hours is miniscule - about 50 kCal". —Korath (Talk) 18:15, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
So the body does save 'some' energy while sleeping. So it must mean the answer to my question is 'no'. Jay 09:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Ukraine someone does not sleep at all

There is a 64 year old man in Ukraine, only identified as Fjodor, who hasn't slept any in the last 20 years. There is a 14 year old boy in Turkey who stopped sleeping a year ago and a 71 year old chinese man who never slept at all in his life. To solve these cases is paramount for space travel and military applications.

Uh… what? Many insomniacs never sleep at all. What’s your point about these three cases, and what does it have to do with space travel? —Frungi 00:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It's unlikely due the sleep deprivation issues, and insomniacs don't necessarily not sleep at all. They may have a disorder that makes them think they are not sleeping when they are, resulting in "bad sleep." They may also just periodically not get sleep, but not not get any sleep at all. 70.111.251.203 13:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This Phrase (which was at the end of the first section, just before "stages of sleep") is so un-encyclopedic that I felt I had to remove it: It also seems a good idea to take at least one short nap daily, too. - what on earth is "seems a good idea" supposed to mean? Could whoever wrote this please write the sentence properly, including a justification, and desirably an authoritative source. Palefire 00:08, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've had a good search for this information, but can't verify it anywhere, (except on wikipedia mirror sites): "Furthermore, at least one reported car-crash survivor has damaged a portion of their brain resulting in complete inability to dream, disproving that the ability to dream is necessary for life." - so I've taken it out. It has the whiff of an urban legend to it, but if anyone can find a source and prove me wrong, go ahead and put it back in the article. Palefire 00:32, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Indeed, an Israeli man with a piece of shrapnel in his brain became famous in sleep circles for not getting any REM sleep at all. Despite that, he went to law school and seems to have no trouble handling new situations." TIME Dec 20, 2004 The cover title of that Time issue is actually "The New Science of Sleep". Well worth reading. erikD 22:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Monophasic Sleep

Should monophasic sleep be redirected to the regular ol' sleep entry? Essentially monophasic sleep is sleeping once a day and is generally thought of as sleep (at least to humans :D). It is the alternative to polyphasic sleep - multiple phases of sleep spread throughout the day.

Dinges

I removed a completely misquoted paragraph about David Dinges ("thingy" in Dutch, incidentally) that suggested that gene therapy will decrease sleep needs. Dinges did not actually study short-sleepers himself, at least not recently. He's just talking as experts do, answering eager questions from journalists looking for a scoop. Yes, in theory you could insert a gene that would limit sleep needs. And therefore? For goodness' sake, let's leave this nonsense out of Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 10:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Paranoid 11:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

how can we reduce the hours of sleep?

i have a problem with sleeping and i want to know if anyone knows how we can sleep less and still be in shape the next day? does anybody think this is possible? i've heard that there are tehniques that allows u to sleep or better say be in a state of somnolence, for a period of 1h-2h and have the same effect as a 8-9h of actuall sleep time.

Further information: Polyphasic sleep

Kevin 13:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

public schools

I have heard that some public high schools in the U.S. have changed their schedules so that first period starts later, that these changes were in response to studies that indicate that teenagers need more sleep. Where can I read more about this? books? websites? articles? Kingturtle 05:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

teenage sleep

I am looking for information about the problems kids encounter as they go through puberty and beyond.... Is this not a really important part of sleep problems?

I have got to say that I am new to this site... in general the information looks good, but the hostility of the edits is really worrisome.... it seems that there are a lot of people that seem very threatened and not very open to the information presented

Plants?

The assertion that sleep is common to ALL life forms including plants is only weakly supported by the article. If anybody knows more about this I'd like to see it spelled out better. The lead of the article is rather all encompassing and I think such a sweeping statement merits stronger support. Relevant text below:

Sleep is the fundamental anabolic process common to all life forms, plant and animal. In animals, the sleeping state is characterized by an absolute minimal degree of consciousness and decreased responsiveness to the surrounding world. Sleep is a dynamic, constructive time of healing and growth for animal organisms.

... It may well be that plant organisms exist in a perpetual anabolic (sleep) state. No catabolic (wakened) state has ever been documented for any plant organism and, by definition, plants do not exhibit the characteristics of animal organisms in a wakened state.

-Tobycat 23:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Plants are always asleep because they never seem to be conscious?

For some reason, the author wants to attribute sleep to all living things and says something about how plants are always asleep. I can't see anything about the sentence that doesn't apply to rocks. Shouldn't this be removed?

--Jbaber

Rocks are not living, but bacteria are alive and sleep. What's not yet known is whether they snore. Same with plants: any horticulturist will tell you that plants have dormant periods.

==

Messy paragraph

I removed the following. It is quite heavily POV, partially unproven and the author also commits the unforgivable sin of inserting loads of pubmed links. If this is proper research, why not cite it properly? We even have an automatic PubMed linker: by simply typing PMID 15743339 you get an automatic Medline link. JFW | T@lk 28 June 2005 20:07 (UTC)

REM sleep (or link Active sleep ) seems to be particularly important to the developing organism. Studies investigating the effects of REM sleep deprivation have shown that deprivation early in life can result in behavioral problems, permanent sleep disruption, decreased brain mass ( Mirmiran et al. ), and even result in an abnormal amount of neuronal cell death ( Morrissey et al. ). This is called the Ontogenetic hypothesis ( Marks et al. ) of REM sleep and suggests that the activity occurring during neonatal REM sleep is necessary for proper central nervous system development. Cell death does not occur during REM deprivation in adult animals ( Cirelli et al. ).


response

An odd comment. Partially unproven...are you serious? As an actual sleep researcher, I can tell you that this is the going theory... based on a lot of literature. I wasn't aware of the proper linking procedure (this is my first day using this service)... I wasn't aware pubmed was not a reputable source.

I'll repost with proper APA style.

Just curious... are you a sleep researcher... a neuroscientist, a neurologist? If not, why are you so quick to delete and entry when half of the info on this page is considered "unproven" and quite arguably POV? Especially the nonsense regarding the function of sleep in all organisms (the anabolic/catabolic reference throughout).

--MrSandman 28 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)

A Damn Shame

I don't mind if anyone wants to write whatever they think the truth is. What I do mind is when my insights and supporting links are erased wholesale. Then you replace it with crap like "sleep is defined as a natural state of rest characterized by reduced body movement, stereotypical body position, and decreased awareness of surroundings." That's about as useless an explanation as any 7-year-old could proffer. Stereotypical body position? Help!

Absolutely sure that you know what sleep is not, perhaps when you've decided what sleep really is you'll be sure to let us all know, won't you? I suspect hell will freeze over first. GeneMosher

Behavioral Definition

That IS the behavioral definition of sleep. What's the problem? What did I erase? If there is relevant info that you want in the definition, please add it. What you call "crap" is the behavioral definition of sleep that is the most accepted. There are other angles/definitions as well.... most notably, EEG sleep as defined by the Principles and Practices of Sleep Medicine (link). Next time I see Dr. Dement or Roth at the annual APSS meeting, I'll let them know how you feel. Before you feel the need to rant and mock the "actual" definitions accepted and provided by experts in the field... you should check your facts. If you were moderately familiar with this field you would understand why "stereotypical body position" would be included in the definition...but I gather you have never worked in a research lab studying sleep and/or related topics. My goal, as a so-called "expert" in this field, is to make sure this definition is up-to-date and accurately reflects the majority regarding what the evidence points to. I am actively involved in basic (animal) and clinical sleep research. My studies have investigated seizure models and sleep, the ontogeny of sleep, pediatric sleep, as well as memory models and sleep (fear conditioning, LTP, and LDP). While I am usually pretty laid back, I cannot allow self-proclaimed "experts" who get their information from "Ask Jeeves" and Google misinform the general public. While this might make me seem like a pompous know-it-all.... I am confident that what I add to this subject is representative of the field. If someone else as info to the contrary, please share. This is science afterall..... there are no proofs... just supported hypotheses.

--MrSandman 29 June 2005 00:10 (UTC)

Your way or the highway, then?

Part of the science that you rejected was the work done by genetic scientists working with fruit flies and their findings that sleep has a genetic, i.e., subcellular basis. Genetic scientists working with fruit flies and uncovering subcellular understandings of life are winning Nobel Peace prizes these days. Let us know when behavioral sleep researchers start reaching such heights of achievement, won't you? Sleep is NOT merely a human behavioral activity and is NEVER going to be understood properly by people who limit their search for what sleep really is to watching people with wires attached to them toss and turn. I am an expert in other fields than behavioral sleep research, yes, but I don't need to be a behavioral sleep researcher to see the blinders that you and some of your colleages wear any more than I need to be a concert pianist to hear what level of skill anyone plays a piano, or a professional basketball player to see what level of skill anyone plays basketball. So enough of the name dropping to support your right of censorship and enough of the ad hominem attacks to support your right of excluding the references I included to the work of the genetic scientists. At the very least you could be honest and preface your Wiki article on sleep with the statement that the work and discoveries of genetic scientists into sleep as a fundamental life process is not allowed on your page and that the Wiki definition of sleep is limited to what people watching other people sleep think it must be. GeneMosher

You have Missed the point

No...Not my way or the highway...the accepted way..... in fact...how do you think "Genetic scientists" measure sleep in the fruit fly? By recording their EEG?..... they use behavioral observation. Read some of the studies (you should cite the original sources) ....you'll know what I am talking about. When they knock out the clock gene.... how do you think they measure the response? When they introduce caffeine or produce "rest deprivation".... how do you think they measure a "rest rebound".... they use behavioral observation. All of the genetic studies ultimately rely on behavioral observation...or at least use it to validate their data. Phenotype.... remember? I in no way rejected the genetic studies. I embrace them as a basic researcher. Most of my work is basic research.... I don't watch people "toss and turn" all night. Behavioral observation is an important tool in biology, as well as neuroscience. I fail to see the reasoning behind your comments. Nobody is refuting the genetic basis of sleep. The problem is.... you make it seem like that is the only aspect of the science....when the truth is... it is only a small part...an important part.... but small. I have provided real references. Nobody else has. No one in the sleep field defines sleep the way you have. Plants to not sleep....as the definition of sleep is based on behavioral and EEG data. If the definition of sleep is changed..... then fine. But it has not. It is more appropriate to refer to plant... or lower vertebrate / invertebrate "sleep" as a Basic Rest and Activity Cycle. That is the proper term. That is the term the "experts" use. I really do not know where this hostility is coming from. I assumed wiki would want the people active in the field to add to this library. These are not my opinions... or my way. They are the ideas supported by the literature and accepted by the field.

--MrSandman 29 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Nobody understand the mystery of sleep

You see this written everywhere - the mystery of sleep isn't understood. That's not good enough for anyone, scientist or not. I'm not representing that I'm either a genetic or a behavioral scientist but it seems clear that sleep is a metabolic necessity, a characteristic of the life process itself. From the dawn of time sleep has been clearly understood as a healing, restorative activity, even as waking activities have been clearly understood as tiring, energy draining and emotionally draining, albeit necessary. What sleep is and what awake is will never be understood without grasping the essential metabolic differentations that characterize them. Sleep isn't a behavior. It's a metabolic state, and it's different from awake which is also a metabolic state. The rejection of this discussion on the Wiki Sleep page is preposterous, no matter what the ideas supported by "the behavioral literature" and "the behavioral field" are, especially since the answer to what sleep is cannot be found by asking the behavioral experts and examining the behavioral literature. The discussion of what sleep is as a fundamental and unique metabolic process needs to be restored if the Wiki page on Sleep is going to be of any value at all. GeneMosher

The info about metabolic states is still there. Have you read the article? What is your hang-up with the word "behavioral"..... I am not reffering to the "behavioral" literature... I am referring to the basic literature. Do you really feel the discussion about sleep should only be about unspecified metabolic processes (you have failed to back up your claims). Can you describe the stages of sleep in purely metabolic terms? How is REM different from wake in metabolic terms? Would you exclude an explanation using the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems... ? Of course it is useful to talk about metabolism when defining sleep.... but there are other aspects of sleep that are important. You are the one who wants to censor.... not me. I only added to the discussion. You need to read the sleep literature. You will see what I am talking about. Again. Read the article. Your "metabolic" theory is still there. And then read the comment at the bottom of the edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

--MrSandman 29 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)

I'm the one who wants to censor, you say?

I'll ask you to back that assertion up. Show us all one example where I've edited out or censored your writing. That failing, a retraction will do and we're done here. I'm not going to devote any more my time on a page discussing and explaining to you the importance of the comparative metabolic characteristics of sleep and awake as long as you or anybody else continues to capriciously undo my contributions. I'll publish the explanations in other places which are not effectively subject to vandalism, however well-intentioned. Oh, wait, you are the merciless (read don't-upset-my-behavior-centric-explanations-for-subcellular-processes) editor, whoever you are. I've got a life so I don't have any more time to get you up to speed on what people outside the behavioral sleep research are doing. Sleep tight, Mr. Sandman.GeneMosher

Again. You have totally missed the point. Farewell. I'll add some info about the genetics of sleep just for you. I'll even add original references.

I regard that as fair and honorable, a benefit to the Wiki readership. GeneMosher

Some comments from someone passing by

It is nowhere said that some people can live a perfect normal life sleeping only 4 hours per day. There are numerous celibrities that are able of this (Margaret Tatcher, I think, is one of them).

On a separate track you don't talk about the fact that if you put someone in a cave long enough, it's sleep cycle won't be anymore synchronized with daylight. I think in a cave, the normal cycle is about 23 hours.

That said there are many valuable information that is very hard to find, like I spotted in the discussion, about people that don't sleep at all. I though that one could find more from the Guiness Book.

Wish you all the best.

SCN

I changed the SCN link in the first paragraph to link to Suprachiasmatic nucleus- SCN goes to the South American Community of Nations.

Graphics

I'd love to see some graphics in this article, for example illustrating how long each phase of sleep is throughout the night, or what the EEGs look like in different phases.

--zandperl 9 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

I'll work on it. I have some polysomnograms of every sleep stage... as well as some sleep disorders. Just haven't had the time.

[[3]] has alot of writing but also some very interesting graphics. jess523s

Dolphin sleep

I've removed the reference to dolphins in the introduction, which said that dolphins and sharks don't sleep. I don't really know about sharks (although I have heard indeed that they do not sleep), but it's crazy to say in the introduction that dolphins don't sleep. They sleep with half their brain at a time, and they appear not to have REM sleep, but the references I've looked at agree to call it "sleep".

See for example the Usenet discussion here, where paragraphs from a paper describing experiments that involved EEG are quoted.

Now, maybe dolphins' doesn't qualify as "sleep" under certain definitions of "sleep", but since it does under other (most?) definitions, it's really POV to state that "dolphins don't sleep period" in the introduction.

LjL 17:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


Who sleeps?

Does sleep really include fish or just some of them? coz I just read sth[4] online, which suggests it's actually a matter of reduction on awareness for some fish. I got a little bit puzzled, who can give a concrete answer?

Yah, I was wondering the same thing. I read on this site[[5]] that insects and fish have a state called torpor. But in wikipedia they say that migratory birds torpor...I'm kind of confused about that.

Dolphins do sleep

There is a lot of data with regard to dolphin sleep. They are a model for unihemeshperic sleep. Jerome Segal is the person doing this research. Lets stick with the facts people. Don't just add things you "feel" are right... or your own theories. Add what has been accepted by the researchers in this area. I took out the reference to sharks not sleeping. We simply do not know that... and it is an issue already addressed in the article. As for myself.. i will start adding more original, peer reviewed sources in addition to the external link(s) I have provided.

untitled

No way. This used to be so much better when it said it's the main anabolic time for every animal. That is the best description for sleep that I have ever read anywhere. I want it back. This article now doesn't say anything. What's the help in that? People come here to learn something. This article was just great when I first read it about three weeks ago and now it's all screwed up. I want it back the way it was. User:13July

I want many things, too, however I can't get all of them. Where's the value in saying that "sleep is the main anabolic time for every animal", when that's not true, or at least it's not known whether it's true? Please, research sleep, come up with reference and proof, and then come back. Just whining never helped anyone. LjL 14:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I am the person who did the writing to explain Asleep and Awake as the two balancing aspects of life, and equated them with the two balancing aspects of metabolism, namely anabolism and catabolism. It seems so clear and obvious to me that sleep has nothing to do with behavior except in the minds of people who consider themselves social scientists, and, instead, has everything to do with the cellular level metabolism of every animal organism, and perhaps all life forms. The behavioralists are in charge here, though, and the molecular biologists are nowhere to be seen.
You're right. The article here doesn't say anything, really. It is all screwed up. It doesn't explain. It doesn't even describe. Part of the problem with Wikipedia is the "original research" prohibition - you can't say anything here that isn't being said by the establishment. I understand why the policy exists, but like most every other policy, it has a downside, namely, it prevents understandings from appearing in Wikipedia except from academic types, with no regard to whether they are right or not. Maybe somebody will appear and be able to overcome this unfortunate shortcoming someday. I guess I'll have to open a web site to be able to explain this to people who want to understand what sleep really is.
Wikipedia content is widely copied across the net in many places. Many people read my contribution and reacted as you have - positively. A lot of lights were turned on. I can't use Wikipedia to further my explanations, unfortunately, so we're kind of screwed there. And I'm not a PHD or an academic, so I don't really have a platform.
I'll tell you this, though. It's clear to me that sleep is the primordial animal life state characterized by anabolic processes, and when a cell undergoes cell division or ingests something external to it for nutrition, that's a hyperactive, catabolic activity, or state, that is necessary only for procreation and ingestion, but nonetheless temporary. When the cell division (procreation) and ingestive activities are completed, the cell has no need to remain awake but does have a need to return to its normal anabolic state, known as sleep. It's what every animal cell does, it's what every multicell animal does. It's too obvious to not talk about it. We're too impressed by the extra things that we do while we're awake to see that being conscious, being 'intelligent' and building civilizations is nothing more than a bunch of extra things we get to do while we're awake, but nothing can change the fact that after we spend a few hours every day in a catabolic state, eating, procreating and doing 'other things' that we absolutely have to return to our primordial anabolic state lest we die. It's clear that the question should be - Why do we awaken - and it's clear that the answer to that is to procreate and ingest. The answer to the question "why do we sleep" is the same answer to the question "why do we live". It's the way we're built, from the time that animal life began. It's only a mystery because the people who are trying to solve it insist that it's a behavioral issue or a higher intelligence issue. It isn't, folks. It's a metabolic issue, and it is based in the fundamental processes of every animal cell.
You're not whining, of course, but you can see for yourself what I also learned here, that your opinion here is never going to be equal to the opinion of a 22-year old or a behavioral scientist admin. Your consolation, though, is that you have grasped the fundamental reality of this so-called 'mystery of life' better than they have. That is, of course, what counts and, except for here, they can't otherwise obstruct your search for understanding. GeneMosher 20:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, he/she has grasped the foundamental reality and all that. Certainly, the "estabilished opinion" must be wrong if your opinion is different -- or 13July's, for that matter.
Your comment about 22 years old also definitely shows a remarkable level of maturity.
Look, you may be right, or "they" might be right, I don't really know. All I know is that 13July was whining, as he/she only brought forward "arguments" like "no way", "this used to be so much better", "that is the best description for sleep", "I want it back", "[it] now doesn't say anything", "this article was just great", "now it's all screwed up".
As everybody will clearly see, these are all valid logical arguments, full of information. About your rant... well, you know what original research refers to, don't you? It basically means you can't put your own theories (i.e. theories you have yourself developed) on Wikipedia. If you think this is wrong, well, I'll have to remind you that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a scientific research journal. If you've got reputable sources (web pages that most agree are serious and based on scientific data are often good enough), then go on and edit. If the only sources you have are your own, well, I'm afraid your edits won't last long.
Cheers LjL 22:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Having no other way to reply to User13July than to use this space I had no choice to replying personally here. The only choice I had was whether to answer with candor or not. I'm not surprised, of course, that, being a younger person, you responded as if I had written to you - which I didn't.
Since you're responded to me then I am entitled to respond to you. You admit you don't know if sleep is better understood as a behavioral phenomenon or a metabolic fact of life. Well, I do know which is better. It's not merely a theory that sleep has a metabolic basis; if you don't sleep you'll become useless, then die, if you don't wake up to ingest then you die. If you don't wake up to procreate then unlike every organism you're descended from since several hundreds of millions of years ago, you'll not procreate. These realities aren't behavioral, they're metabolic - they are the processes fundamental to all animal life. There's no need for reputable sources or scientific data to establish such things. So where is the line drawn between what needs to be referenced and what can be written down as accepted fact? Aha, there's the rub.
A talk page is a place to talk and explain. You should calm down and think about that, what it means, why it is necessary. People who are not Wiki admins or scientists have every right to understand what sleep is and nobody has any business holding that against them, on a talk page, especially when the behaviorists have utterly failed to explain it to anyone's satisfaction except their own. The truth will find its way to the front of the stage as surely as the cream will find its way to the top of the milk. GeneMosher 23:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You had no other way to reply to 13July that to use this space? Doesn't 13July have a talk page?
While you weren't writing to me, you have, among the other things, obviously written about me. That's one of the reasons I replied to you. Even without said reason, I am entitled to reply to people who post things not directly directed at me on talk pages. Yes, I'm very sorry, I'm definitely entitled to it.
Besides from this, if you feel you "know which is better" and feel you need not cite sources, then go on. I'll put on some music and watch.
Where is the line drawn between what needs to be referenced and what can be written down as accepted fact? Well, obviously what is an accepted fact can be written down as an accepted fact. What isn't, can't.
LjL 00:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
User:13July's talk page does not yet exist and User:13July made a choice to talk about sleep here on the sleep talk page. No surprise there. User:13July wasn't talking to you in particular, either, but was clearly wondering why the page has gone to hell, as I was also wondering. I was writing to User:13July about what you wrote, not about you. Very young people unavoidably lack the experiences that life brings; they simply haven't had the time to experience things and think about them which much older people have. It's not something any young person should take personally. The music thing is a good idea. Meanwhile, User13July has the advantage of knowing that there is life, and understanding which reaches far beyond the ivory towers. If the page was well written, insightful and discussed sleep as the metabolic phenomenon it is then this thread wouldn't even exist. It does exist, though, because that person was frustrated, as I am, that a good page has been screwed up and turned into something relatively useless. GeneMosher 03:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
13July's talk page can be edited, though it doesn't yet exist. So you technically did have another way to reply -- though I'm not saying you should have used it, only refuting your statement that you didn't have one.
My problem with 13July's comment was that he/she didn't explain (in any way 'at all, not just by citing references and such) why he/she thought this page had been screwed up etc. That's not considered a positive attitude on Wikipedia, usually, and as I stated, July13 should do more than just whining -- which is what he/she did -- to get this page to a better state. One option, of course, is to directly edit the page, though in a case like this it could have easily meant a quick revert.
I agree that this page should be well written and insightful, and that it should discuss sleep as what it really is; it should however also discuss why it is believed that sleep is what it is, and who believed what (of course, extremely fringe views like that of one single person are usually not welcome on Wikipedia).
If you find that this article currently lacks what I described, then please challenge it (by requesting references for statements that have none), or edit it (by justifying your edits with more than "I know it is so" useless comments).
If you don't have the time or willingness to do this, then too bad. LjL 15:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, I take it you know that Wikipedia articles can also describe two or more contrasting points of view, both in the same article, as long as none of them is a fringe view, that all are adequately referenced, and all the usual rules? This means that what you call the "behaviorist" hypothesis can co-exist with other hypotheses, like yours, as long are yours is also shared by scientists who wrote about it in peer-reviewed publications and all that. LjL 16:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the job you've helped me to do here in demonstrating how and why there is no guarantee that any given Wikipedia page necessarily contains a meaningful, useful or even accurate explanation for those who visit it in search of understanding of a common phenomenon.
So you aren't saying that I have misunderstood how Wikipedia works, but rather that you don't like the way it works. Ok -- well, if you look in categories "Wiki communities" and "Online encyclopedias", you should find some alternative projects that are similar to Wikipedia but have differences that might correspond with your objections. Also, on the Wikipedia article you'll find comprehensive information about Wikipedia, including criticism. Perhaps you should switch to some other project, or create a new project yourself taking ideas from your and other perople's criticisms.
Oh, and I almost forgot, you also have the option of changing the rules themselves of Wikipedia. Go to the original research page, and to other relevant pages, and make the appropriate modifications in order for the rules to allow creating a meaningful and useful encyclopedia.
Bye. LjL 17:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

....... funny... because that is exactly what you are doing by interjecting your own pet theories and not sticking to what the actual science says. Visit your personal talk page. I left a link for you that will help explain what the actual, scientific..... peer supported definition is.. and how we came up with that definition. In addition, read the posts in this talk page... most of them refer to how the anabolic/catabolic is oversimplified and not relevant to this discussion. You can't change the definition of sleep to conform to your own ideas.... --MrSandman 17:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

the understanding of sleep as an anabolistic phenomenon isn't anybody's pet theory, nor is it an idea that just arrived. It's established scientific fact, as is the understanding of activities that we pursue while awake are catabolistic. If you want to see a simplistic explanation of sleep, look no further than the first paragraph of the sleep page: "Sleep is the regular state of natural unconsciousness observed in all mammals and birds." "An organism undergoing sleep is said to be asleep, while a nonsleeping conscious organism is said to be awake." Honestly, I find these to be absolutely pathetic introductory statements. And you are not only defending them but holding them up in front of us all as the best that science has to offer. I wish you were joking because there's no other way to take such statements, even if they were in an 8th grade science essay. I keep waiting for anybody else here to join you in the defense of the current state of the page but I don't see anyone except the other fellow who admits he doesn't know what is right or wrong. User:July13 said the page used to be better and now sucks. I agree with that person. You get to do what you want with the sleep page and now you don't like what is being written over here in the talk page. I think you should be happy to have so much and be willing to let people at least make comments about your page here. It doesn't seem like much to ask in a public place which is unique precisely because it exists for talking about the page at issue. User:13July and I would like to see you spend your time making the sleep page itself better if you can.
The Wikipedia attitude here, as you will certainly have noticed, is that "if something is an estabilished fact, then is should not prove hard to find good references". Do that, if you care. LjL 22:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I've Googled the words 'Sleep' and 'Anabolic'. There are about 769,000 pages on the English portion of the World Wide Web which contain both of them. I've Googled the words "Sleep' and 'Metabolic'. There are about 701,000 pages on the same part of the World Wide Web which contain both of them. This conclusively demonstrates the level of interest in and support for the idea that sleep is an anabolic activity, just as the awakened state is a catabolic activity, and that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to reflect this. Why do you resist this and, instead, persist in such irrelevant taunting?
Funny that "sleep" and "catabolic" gives 48.000 results (oh, right, sleep is not catabolic, you say... but someone should mention on the web this dualism asleep/anabolic, awake/catabolic, shouldn't them?!).
Besides, strangely, Google (world, though, not just English pages) gives me 486,000 results for "sleep anabolic", and a good 689,000 for "sleep metabolic". Still same order of magnitude, agreed...
What this "conclusively demonstrates" is doubtful to me at best, since "sleep stereo" (the first word I came up with) gives 961,000 results... LjL 01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Look; I'm going to tell you two fellows something that you probably don't give a shit about but which is nonetheless true. What I wrote about sleep is all over the World Wide Web. People read it, they thought about it, they felt that it made sense because it was consistent with what they knew and they embraced it - added it to their web pages. A lot of these people are doctors and professionals in their fields. A lot of these web sites are run by health organizations! You two are standing with your opinions in contrast to a lot of professional people in a very broad spectrum of professional fields. Do your own ten or fifteen minutes of research and confirm this for yourselves with the Google search engine if YOU care.
The burden of proof is yours, not mine! Give references! There will be tons of them if a lot of doctors and professional embrace the views. I could "do my own research", but why should I, since I am apparently content with the current state of the article ('cause I'm stupid, 'cause I'm mean, 'cause I'm a behaviorist, 'cause of anything)? Either research yourself the things you want put into the article, or shut up! Don't they say "put up or shut up" in English? LjL 01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you guys write something that explains, that adds understanding, that gets people thinking? If all you want to do is to mock me then go for it, but that won't help all those people out there who want to learn, to understand and to know what sleep really is. Step outside the box - grow a little. That's the only challenge here. Wikipedia is only as great as what people are allowed to do with it. Enough of this phoney "No Original Research" bullshit. Ideas which are being discussed throughout the world and on the Web and are then added to Wikipedia are lots of things, but they are not "Original Research". GeneMosher 00:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't cause we don't. We might not even care, you know. But judging from what you write, you appear to care (myself, I'm most concerned with Wikipedia-common-sense here than the actual article, since as you certainly remember, I've admitted I don't know too much about the topic).
"No original research" isn't bullshit. "No original research" is a policy that must be respected here. But as you've said that doctors and professionals worldwide believe in the same theories you believe in, then "no original research" apparently doesn't apply here. If it is not original research, then you're perfectly free to add it to the article.
Just cite your sources, since another policy of Wikipedia is that sources should be cited, expecially when other people apparently disagree with the contents of the articles.
LjL 01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I did NOT say that the 'No Original Reasearch' policy was bullshit. That's what YOU say that I said. And then you reacted to that. You set up your own strawman and knock him down instead of carefully reading what I wrote and reacting to what I actually wrote.
No, I merely said that it is not bullshit -- nothing mentioning you. If you want to play semantics (which is my favorite game, nothing against that!), do it right :-) LjL 17:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
What I DID say was 'Enough of this phoney 'No Original Research' Bullshit." You ignored or failed to understand the context. Let me explain it to you this way - I think you are thoughtlessly rejecting what I have written by holding up a sign that says 'No Original Research' in front of everything that I write. I am merely rephrasing what is written all over the Internet in discussions about the nature of life and life's processes and I'm not actually writing anything here that is either new, or original, or unestablished. I'm merely writing these things in a place where a couple of people are quite uncomfortable reading them.
Now, "enough of this phoney 'No Original Research' Bullshit" can mean that "no original research" is bullshit, can't it? Perhaps you didn't explain yourself, instaed of me failing to understand you. In any case, I think you know I'm not a native speaker of English. But, let's talk about things that matter more...
You also may have failed to notice that I also said that, since your claims aren't original research (you stated that explicitely, and you also said they're spread all over the world and the Internet... this says they're not original research, if it's true!), you're perfectly free to edit the article accordingly.
You merely should, when editing the article, add good references to your claims. If your claims aren't original research, and stuff about them is found all over the Web, you should have a very easy time finding some.
Look, I'll quote the No original research page, which says exactly this:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
So, what's your problem with this? LjL 17:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I've made a lot of edits in Wikipedia and I've only run into this here and on a couple of pages where some admins didn't want anything to be written about the Palestinian people. I can deal with defending what I say. Defending myself against what someone pretends I said is a little tougher and I usually don't bother unless I think they are genuinely confused or confusing others by doing so, which is the case here. GeneMosher
Then defend what you say, and defend it the Wikipedia way, but stating it and providing references for it! Defending stuff by stating things to the effect that "I know about the mystery of like, which makes it so", or that "the Web is full of references for what I say, but go find them yourself" won't help. Anywhere on Wikipedia. Really. LjL 17:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It was changed because that is not the definition of sleep. This article should contain what is accepted by the scientific community... not someone's personal theory. Spreading misinformation is not the goal of Wikipedia. If you can explain to me, for example, how REM sleep can be considered an anabolic state.... then we can put it up there.. good luck. --MrSandman 14:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Rats and reading

Some recent studies concluded the cause of death to be more closely related to REM deprivation, but also found the rats died in about a week less time.

What does this sentence mean? Less time than what? Someone who knows what it's actually supposed to mean, please correct it.

Also, later:

Reading or other light mental activity often works, simply because it prevents the reader from becoming

... becoming what?

LjL 01:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


It's my first time on this page. I'd like to express my support for MrSandman's (and Wiki's) position on rejecting misinformation. While it is true that science cannot yet provide answers to some questions, and that we can find and merge many scientifically unestablished theories to try to explain events to our liking and answer those questions, those answers do not belong here. There are probably other discussion boards and online communities to discuss them.

Absolutely agreed. Though I'm not sure that the theories GeneMosher is pushing aren't estabilished (or at least scientifical and peer-reviewed, which is usually enough ground to put them on Wikipedia); apparently he's unwilling to find sources for others to check, instead assuming that people should believe him with, uh, arguments like "It's a conclusion I reached after some thought about the nature of sleep".
My understanding is that he thinks that "his" theories are really well known and acknowledged, and self-evident, but that there are people (possibly labeled "the behaviorists", as he says) who do their best to pretend that such theories aren't scientific. Perhaps that's the reason why he doesn't find it worthwhile to provide references.
However, I can hardly find a claim that "plants are always asleep" (a claim that, reading this talk page, he seems to have made) self-evident to any extent, for example.
LjL 14:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry, I can't actually show that the "sleeping plants" claim can be attributed to GeneMosher. It was in fact added in an edit made by IP 207.189.187.70 on 3 January 2005 -- the editor may or may not have been GeneMosher, though the style seems his to me. LjL 14:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are online communities that discuss scientifically unestablished theories. Amazingly enough, this is done in the midst of the discussions of scientifically established theories! Here excepted, there are vibrant discussions and breakthroughs taking place worldwide.
I have talked about sleep and awake as differentiated metabolic states. I have mentioned that all life is metabolic. I have mentioned that plant metabolism, like animal metabolism, is both anabolic and catabolic. I have mentioned that sleep has been long been determined to be an anabolic process and that awake has long been determined to be a catabolic process. In this sense, therefore, it is no less rational to talk about asleep and awake in plants as it is in animals. The fact that most plants are not mobile, as animals are, is no basis for rejecting a discussion of what asleep and awake in plants might mean. It's merely an irrational, behavior-centric opinion that the the studies of differentiation of metabolism have no implications for advancing the understanding of what sleep is and what awake is.
Plant growth and development is described in terms of metabolism. Metabolism is the sum of the processes of building up and tearing down the living substance of which cells are composed (the protoplasm). Plant development involves a continual process of metabolism — both anabolic (constructive) and catabolic (destructive). Photosynthesis is anabolic metabolism, but for it to take place, complex molecules must be broken down into simpler parts. If plant energy sources are used, then some catabolic metabolism must occur to attain the necessary components. Stated another way, carbohydrates produced and stored earlier are converted to energy as needed in current processes, but for this anabolic metabolism to occur, tissue must be broken down. Thus catabolic metabolism is a necessary part of growth and development. When plants are young, there is much more anabolic metabolism than catabolic metabolism, so growth is rapid. When anabolic and catabolic metabolism are equal, growth still occurs, but without a change in size.
This is all nonsense to people who don't read much or who reject the established science and naively think sleep is merely something that is uniquely human or that it is a mammalian trait, or that it is something an advanced brain has to do to keep from exploding. Nobody needs to take sides in such a discussion as this, of course. All anybody who wants to learn and understand the mystery of sleep needs to do is open up a new browser window or tab and type in a few search words. It is absurd to assert that there is no science behind the metabolic differentiation of sleep and awake. It's 'established science', the net reflects the science behind it in hundreds of thousands of web pages and the documentation is there for all to see. GeneMosher

the fact that you are relying on web pages for your information speaks volumes.

You're not the kind of person who avoids Blogs & relies, instead, on the local paper to understand what's going on in the world, are you? There's some pretty good information on the web. Wikipedia is on the web. What's wrong with relying on information that's on the Web?

Are you a scientist?

You have a P.H.D. but are YOU a scientist? No, wait, I'm playing the same trick. I withdraw the question. I'm the one with my name on my work, Mr. Sandman, PDH, whoever you are. I think anonymous people cannot demand much more disclosure from people than you're already getting from me. I'm a computer software architect. I guess neither one of us is a scientist specializing in metabolism. Nonetheless, we're debating the connection, or not, between metabolism and sleep/awake. Who you are, or aren't, doesn't concern me in the least. For some reason, who I am, or am not, does concern you. The ideas ought to stand or fall on their own merits, not on who someone is, or isn't.

Do you know to do a lit search? If the evidence is for all to see.....where is it?

Apparently, who I am did concern you, as you found it worth of bothering to check my user page and then find and put here a piece of information (the fact that I'm 22) that was possibly an attempt to dismiss my opinions on other than "their own merits". LjL 12:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Fact is, your theory is simplistic at best. You don't like the fist few paragraphs of this definition? Want me to make it harder for you to understand?

I want the truth. I want to see a search for the truth. Don't do anything here for me. Do it for the countless people who will read about sleep on the net and who will get exactly what is written on the sleep page, and who will no get anything that isn't written there.
Strange, I also want to see a search for the truth. As MrSandman said, we're still waiting for that search :-) And remember, you are in charge of doing it (and summarizing the results here), since you seem to be the one unsatisfied with the current article (of course, you can also make a search to demonstrate that the current article is flawed, even though I personally think a constructive search would be better than a destructive one). LjL 12:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What would be the point.... keep reading...and look up the very few original sources cited and you may learn a few things.

Condescension comes so easily when you're worked up, doesn't it?

There is one thing you should answer... I asked this before... but you never addressed it: Explain to me how REM sleep is anabolic.

I see this as a "make me happy, I dare you" assertion. I'll do what I can on the sleep page but what I won't do is answer specific questions for you in particular, especially when they are questions that you can easily research yourself.

In your simple definition of sleep... you label sleep as anabolic and wake as catabolic..... much too simple an explanation...

It's at least true. Or do you deny that it is? If it's true and widely acknowledged, then it's either relevant or it isn't. If it's relevant, which I insist it must be, then the simple acknowledgement belongs here as a starting point. That's all I've actually insisted on throughout, a better starting point. If you want to call it simple I can deal with that. What I am not comfortable with is a starting point that precludes finding out what sleep is. If it's simple, at least it's correct, and it can be made complex to your satisfaction.

it does nothing to help the reader understand the subtle processes that take place during sleep.

It is a starting point. Once it is established, the readership can take it from there, as user:13July so insightfully pointed out. That person wanted something meaningful to hold on to and was trying to tell you that they were displeased that it had been taken away and replaced with something that was unsatisfying.

I understand what you are saying... believe me... but you are not explaining sleep. You are attempting to explain a very small part of what sleep is.

And the problem with doing that is...?

Are you aware that brain metabolism is as high as or higher than waking brain metabolism during REM sleep?

Well, it's anabolic, and not catabolic, so I would expect that to be the case. Empirical data to follow? Or can we say a thing or two here or that that is universally acknowledged without having to have multiple references to support every sentence on every Wikipedia page?

Is that included in your definition? Are you aware that sleep..... by definition.....is a central nervous system activity....

I'm saying that sleep is, by definition, a metabolic process that is differentiated from the metabolic process that characterises the periods during which animals are awake, acting as predators and procreating.

are you saying that plants have a complex central nervous system?

I'm saying that plants demonstrate clear anabolic and catabolic states. No, wait, I don't say this - science says this.

Sleep as it is studied, has demonstrated this from the beginning... this is where the definition originated.

Except that the consensus is that nobody knows why we sleep. The people who are explaining to us what sleep is admit that they don't know why we sleep. That's unacceptable.

Did you know that digestion occurs while we sleep? Do you consider digestion anabolism?

Of course. Anabolism is characterized by digestion and cellular growth, the building of complex, useful protiens from protiens that have been ingested.

I'm sorry, but your contention that plants sleep is ridiculous.

A strawman. I said that plants balance anabolic and catabolic metabolisms, as animals do. You can either accept this or reject it. I'll stand by.

There is an established scientific definition and study of sleep. Plants are not included in that study or definition.... because they don't sleep.

If you're studying brains and rapid eye movement then of course you'll never see anything. If you're studying the meabolics that differentiate sleep and awake then the question remains open. If you don't understand sleep then you can hardly pontificate on who sleeps and who doesn't, on what life forms sleep and what life forms don't.

Do plants go through cycles of anabolism and catabolism? Yes, we all do.... it is part of being alive... but that is not sleep.

Yes, we all do, and what is sleep?

I know this is difficult for you to understand.... but I'll explain this to you again. I have a Ph.D. in neuroscience. I am not a behaviorist. I publish in peer reviewed scientific journals on this subject. I am a scientist.

Difficult for me to understand? Hardly. The scientists I know have no proclitities toward condescension.

The theory you propose is not about sleep. It is about something else.

I'm not proposing a theory. I'm writing about the metabolic differentiations which characterise sleep and awake.

Create your own article. Please. If you think it is that important, then let it be known.

I guess you forgot about the often-referred-to "No Original Research" policy.

By the way. If you actually read the article, it in no way suggest that sleep is "uniquely human or that it is a mammalian trait"..... keep reading...there is a section that explains this...and how current methods are improving in order to answer questions like these. You might learn something.

The first sentence says, "Sleep is the regular state of natural unconsciousness observed in all mammals and birds. Do you really interpret this to say that there is no suggestion that sleep is a "uniquely... mammalian trait"?
Uh, now my English skills must be really lacking, 'cause I thought stating that sleep is "observed in all mammals and birds" did, by definition of "uniquely", imply that sleep is not unique to mammals. Birds aren't mammals now, are they? LjL 12:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And the suggestion that, "people who don't read much or who reject the established science and naively think sleep is merely something that is uniquely human or that it is a mammalian trait" is absolutely ridiculous! You are the one ignoring the established science! We are still waiting for your sources.

sounds like another "make me happy, I dare you!", frankly.

...Oh ...and again... Read the comments on this talk page... most of them agree with what i am saying

That would be because you wrote virtually all of them.

....and ... did you read the info from the link I added to your user page?

Of course. Much of it was not very scientific, insightful, useful or, correct.

I am not trying to be condescending...

not to worry. It clearly doesn't take much effort.

but I really don't think you have a grasp of this subject. You are describing something else in your definitions. But, at the very least... even if they are web pages (which are not adequate), you should provide links. --MrSandman 00:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see you react to the ideas, not to an idea you have about whether I am grasping the subject. The subject is one which is a great big ball of questions and has very few answers attached.
Scientists have been teaching us all for 150 years that the petroleum in the earth formed over billions of years from decayed plant life formed during the carboniferous period. We all believed them. Well, it turns out that this simply isn't true. That doesn't mean that scientists yet know how petroleum is formed, but at least they aren't generally trying to still tell us such a story any longer. The science was wrong. There's a lesson in humility for all the scientists and teachers of science here. People who think they have the answer have stopped looking for the answer. If they answer they have is wrong, well, that's not OK, is it? Seriously: I think you just want to shoot the messenger.
GeneMosher 02:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You still do not get it. You are saying that the readers of Wikipedia should ignore the established field of sleep medicine/science for your theory. It is your theory by the way..... that is how you phrased it. Your definition of sleep was an "alternating pattern of anabolism and catabolism"... that is simply false. According to you... we should all throw away over 50 years of research in favor of your internet-found theory. That is simply ridiculous. My condescending attitude is nothing compared to your vain arrogance if you think we should exclude the ESTABLISHED definition of sleep in favor of yours. Again, that fact that you think you can get information off the web and think it is valid... this shows how little you know about science and the scientific process. Using your method, I could show "proof" that bigfoot exists, the US never walked on the moon...... that Hitler is in the US http://www.theregister.com/2005/07/18/hitler_san_diego/ ......the list goes on.

When scientists perform research, they publish the results in peer-reviewed journals.....not the newspaper...or the web... they publish them only after the studies have been scrutinized by experts in the field.

That is why Wiki wants original sources... that is what an original source means.... the original journal article containing the data from the study..... like the ones in the References section of this article. It's funny that you suggest the info from the National Sleep Foundation is incorrect but you are right! How arrogant! Read the page again. It might be difficult to understand...not having a background in the sciences.... but you should be able to get something out of it. I'm condescending to you because you welcome it with your attitude.

Your admission takes us a lot closer to the truth of what's really going on here. OK, then; do you really think that the idea that sleep restores biochemical (metabolic) processes that are progressively degraded by catabolic activities during prior wakefulness is not intuitively reasonable? It's been clearly established that growth hormone secretion increases dramatically immediately following sleep onset. It's clear, isn't it, that sleep is a metabolic (physiological process that affects virtually every organs of an animal? Is it too much to ask you to focus on some simple ideas such as these? I'd like to add these to the sleep page. What's your reaction to them? React to the ideas, not to me! GeneMosher

What you say is already in the article.....more is needed... but it is there. At the onset of Slow Wave Sleep (stage 4), growth hormone secretion is increased. Moreover, restorative theories of sleep suggest that it is Slow Wave Sleep that is responsible for many of the restorative properties of sleep (immune function...). Note that this is just one stage of sleep.... as defined by the EEG (hence it's name).

That is my point. Calling sleep an anabolic state...and wake a catabolic state is not inclusive enough. There are many things that occur during REM sleep, for example, that would qualify it as being catabolic...and yet it is a stage of sleep.

Edited the first sentence from "most fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and" to its current form. I don't think it is appropriate to include insects, fish, and amphibians in a definition that describes sleep as a state of consciousness. A reference to insects and lower animals is just a few paragraphs down the page.

Figures

I added figures for stages 1, 2, 4, and REM. I did not include stage 3 because it is represented by stage 4. The figures are screenshots from patients and represent 30 second epochs (30 seconds of data). They are polysomnograms..... so they have data from both eyes, chin, EEG, legs, microphone, intercostal EMG, sterno cloidal mastoid activity, nasal/oral air flow, thoracic effort, abdominal effort, , EKG, oxyemitry and body position... in that order. Hope this adds something to this article.

I am not very good at formatting...so if someone wants to put them in a better spot (not just on the right)... by all means..

Horses

From the article: "Cattle and sheep are unique in that they can sleep while standing [...]". I seem to recall that horses can sleep while standing, too - can someone confirm or deny that? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 02:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

REM "dream" deprivation

I removed the statement "Experimental dream deprivation provokes markedly disordered thinking and behavior whether sleep perse is not reduced, lending credence to the importance of the phenomenon."

From the dreaming section. REM deprivation does not "provoke markedly disordered thinking".... In fact, some believe antidepressants work the way they do because of their ability to suppress REM sleep. There are also other medications that dramatically reduce or eliminate REM sleep. Clonidine is one example.. it is a antihypertensive... Clonidine administration does not promote disordered thought.

Advertising in Sleep & Drugs para?

There is a possible instance of advertising within the sleeps and drug paragraph. The author refers to, quite excessively, a sleep-aid drug named "modafinil", and proceeds to refer to the manufacturer of said drug. - This coupled with the fact said drug is internally linked several times within this paragraph causes me to believe parts of this paragraph may be a thinly veiled marketing attempt. There are dozens of sleeping drugs on the market, the mere mention of a specific product - let alone including it most prevalently - is rather questionable in itself. If anyone has an opinion as to whether this paragraph ought to be modified, then let it be heard here and I can set about altering it. -- User:D-Katana 18.50, November 1st 2005 (UTC)

The "advertisement" is for a drug made by "Cephalon" with the name brand "Provigil" (chemical generic name is "modafinil"). Probably still protected by patents so no generic is available. It is a rather recent development, one of about only 4 alerting drugs used by narcoleptics, hypersomnoniacs, troops in combat, truckers, etc, to remain awake. The drugs should be listed in the article and in the nacolepsy article. I suggest you check PubMed (MEDLINE) for a review article comparing all alerting drugs rather than quote from Cephalon's advertising. Then rewrite the paragraph. Jclerman 20:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for the recommendation. It seems, from what I've just read modafinil can also be used in treating other psychiatric disorders, most notably bipolar depression and (to a seemingly lesser extent) schizophrenia. Not to put too fine a point upon it, but it is apparant modafinil ought to be mentioned across more articles judging by this source. However, since the drug's effects are relatively benign, when used in treating schizophrenia I am of two minds whether to mention it at all within it's article. Thoughts? -- User:D-Katana 01:43, November 1 2005 (UTC)
Check more sources. Don't exaggerate claims by manufacturers. They have already done it. This is a pure personal and thus biased opinion. I'm narcoleptic. I've followed the development of modafinil until 5 yrs ago but never tried it. In fact, I got poisoned by painkillers before we read about their side effects in the news. Cephalon was eager to try modafinil in everything, but in general as far as I followed it up to some 5 yrs ago, they treated the loss in alertness and tested it in ADD and in MS patients. Stakeholders were eager to sell the drug. All this is my biased opinion based on GBytes of confidential patients email lists. Naturally those who got horrible headaches complained to the lists. Those who did fine, perhaps dropped from the lists. I suggest you find more PubMed and similar info. I'll be glad to expand and clarify all of the above. Let me know here or in my "talk page". From some of my own unpublished yet neuromodeling it's not surprising that many conditions cause loss of attention, arousal, vigilance, etc. Then coffee or alerting medications "correct" for the loss. Also many conditions such as bipolar impinge in our circadian rhythms, also jet-lag, shift-work, etc, thus causing lack of alertness to intrude at "unexpected" times. Etc. Keep reading and thinking and you can make a nice contribution to this article. There are many aspects deficiently written up. Again my opinion, this one based on some of my research in the late 1980s. Sorry I'm running and much of the above might not be clear... Jclerman 03:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Will do. I must admit that particular psychiatrists' view did seem biased, it didn't possess much of a basis other than to plug modafinil to the 'editor' he was writing to. I believe, judging by the sparse nature of the drug's effects on schizophrenia it shouldn't be mentioned in that article. There is no doubt many medications with negligible effects on various disorders (for instance, the SSRI fluoxetine), thus including such a mention would, in my view, lack value. On bipolar depression however I think modafinil is worth a mention, albeit a brief one. There was by coincidence a psychiatry conference on this last June which includes some possible statistics and facts which could be of use, something the first source did not. However as with the aforementioned letter this involved individual professionals who may be biased, though it seems less likely considering the factual and statistical tone maintained throughout. I’ll keep looking for sources on both issues regarding the drug, its likely there is better out there.

During my short tenure here I’ve been here I’ve seen one blatant attempt of advertising in a newly created article (by a law firm and henceforth swiftly deleted). Much more common however is information which would appear to be subtle marketing, such as in this case. That's obviously my own view of course; it could be purely innocent. Nevertheless modifying this material and establishing NPOV is a worthy goal, if only in the name of quality if nothing else. I too have concerns with the actions pharmaceutical companies and their attitudes; I could mention them on your talk page once this matter has been tackled and the case closed :).. -- D-Katana 14:59, November 2 2005 (UTC)

In general I agree with you. I'll look into the references you quote, sometime ;)... Meanwhile I want to suggest you look into the following: By the way, I've been wallking the wiki only since a few months ago and just now got familiar in searching for commercial intrusions. I saw an anon person editing articles of many artists. In all the addition was a link to a gallery selling art! Was the gallery doing it or a naive user...? Anyhow, I did some minor short and incomplete edits in the "narcolepsy" article some weeks ago. You might look there for: the chemical names of alerting drugs paired with their brand name versions and, more important if you want to make your writing fully comprehensive: Some narcoleptics can't tolerate the CNS stimulants and found that "for them" (a particular subgroup?), "codeine" has alertness properties. Then from the molecular structure + etc it was found that "selegiline" also has alertness properties. These facts have not, in general, reached the clinicians. Despite the fact that last time I looked into it (years ago) there were already about 4 or more abstracts of peer-reviewd papers in MEDLINE, for each one of these drugs. (My personal choice was to use selegiline.) Perhaps you can check into it and add/edit info in the relevant articles. After "closing" the pharmacologic topic I'll be glad to chat in my talk page about the conflicts of interest that can be inferred even from the scientific articles and the need to have an article about the USA drug categories and conflicts (I don't know how it would compare with the UK). Also I suggest that for your evaluation you compare opinions published by psychiatrists with those of neurologists. They are not free of "competing conflicts". Again, depending on how comprehensive you want to write it (or just to know about it) you could review and list the neurotoxicity and side-effects of the different drugs. By the way, there was another alerting drug used for sleep and attention disorders: pemoline, a MAO inhibitor (hepatotoxic, has killed many patients). I saw it mentioned in the wiki somewhere (???) Jclerman 16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
=================

Can anyone else tell me why the example drugs not to use are cocaine and Ritalin??? Who uses cocaine all the time before trying to get a good nights sleep ??? [[[User:Cfeyrer|Cfeyrer]]

Sleep the Truth?

Will sleeping really make you tell truth in states of REM or whenever someone can talk to your subconcious mind? It makes sense in the respect that you are no longer aware of the "truth", so to speak, but you will tell whatever you believe is true, whether or not you say it isn't in real life. The other half of your mind is uncontrolled, as most of us know, and we can't even access it ourselves without difficulty. So, what are your speculations on this matter? --CherryT 01:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Better sleep

Isn't it better to sleep on your back with a pillow under your knees? Sometimes though it is suggested to sleep in your most comfortable position as it's hard to adjust.

== It really depends on the person. Breathing can be more difficult on your back for some people...particularly if you snore or have OSA. But falling asleep in one position and staying in that position is a different matter. Most people switch positions relatively frequently throughout the night anyway.

MrSandman

Stage 4 ?

How long usually does it take for a person to get to stage four. And how do u tell if a person is in stage four?


====Stage 4 sleep occupies much of the first third of the night...and an average person can go into stage 4 usually within 10 to 20 minutes after falling asleep. When a person is in stage 4, there breathing is very regular and "calm"...and are difficult to arouse. People also may "sleep talk" during this stage. Stage 4 is very distinct when viewed on with EEG, or Polysomnography..... as indicated by the figures in this article. MrSandman 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Milk as a sleep aid

In the section "Approaches to sleeping better", I have qualms with the statement: "Milk contains tryptophan, which can help relax the nervous system and induce drowsiness." While technically true, tryptophan's soporific effects are dependent on the ratio between Trp and the amount of large neutral amino acids (LNAA), because Trp competes with LNAA's for entry into the brain (See PMID 1512627, PMID 15883425). I am not certain if the the protein in milk has a high enough Trp:LNAA ratio to permit Trp uptake into the brain.

A recommendation which may be more scientifically grounded would be to eat some carbohydrates with the milk, which will reduce the levels of competing LNAAs (PMID 16362773). --Uthbrian (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's peer-reviewed evidence that milk can *not* aid in sleep, inclusion of such a statement (rephrased slightly) has merit, if only because it's a folk remedy. Tbutzon 05:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

" open the window or switch off the heating "

  1. Ha!! We close the window and switch on the air conditioning to attain a cool room! Please don't write statements that apply locally unless you state to which locality they apply.
  2. "and, how to do that? ... although this does not affect body temperature." And, in the case of body temperature specify whther you mean core temperature or what?

[User:Jclerman|Jclerman]] 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

72 degrees

72 degrees F is the ideal temperature for sleep based on the animal literature I am familiar with. Too hot and two cold and you will have less REM sleep. During REM your ability to thermoregulate is diminished..and you will approach ambient temperature. In addition, directly heating the preoptic area of the hypothalamus will induce sleep (NREM), while cooling the pons will induce REM... in other words.. it is a little more complicated than just leaving the window open.. or turing the AC on.

In addition, the milk and tryptophan comment is false... Turkey and Milk do not produce sleepiness due to Tryptophan content.. the Tryptophan then contain is at a level lower than what is needed to produce sleepiness.... this is an "old wives' tail".....

MrSandman 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sleep Onset Awareness Paradox.

i've added a third paragraph on the paradoxical nature of sleep onset, as there didn't seem to be any mention of this anywhere. It says basically that if you stay self aware, you will not sleep. I've been in ICU in a very serious state from sleep deprivation as a result of this torture. It's very real and uncontrollable. Anyway, i thought that it deserves a mention here. Feb, 1, 06

I deleted this reference. Being self-aware does not make sleep an impossibility. The setting you describe may interrupt sleep... but does not make sleep an impossibility. The information you provided is interesting, but is also anecdotal. It may be better to put this in an article about insomnia, rather than the general sleep article.

MrSandman 16:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course being self-aware prevents sleep onset from occuring. I have a mental condition that forces me to be self-aware as i'm trying to rest. Just try it. Sleep is a trick in that in order to fall asleep, you cannot remain aware that you're falling asleep as you're falling asleep. It just doesn't work. Tell me how you can fall asleep while being aware that you're doing so? You're a sleep scientist, aren't you? I challenge you to explain to me how this isn't so. RB-Feb/2/06

As I said, this would be a better fit in an article about insomnia. In addition, this is a general article about sleep, adding your own experiences is not appropriate, unless you can describe it in a way that is back-up up by peer-reviewed sources. What you describe is a characteristic of insomnia, which is a sleep disorder. This is not an article about sleep disorders, it is an article about sleep. If we mentioned every aspect of sleep and it's disorders, this article would be 100 pages. If there is not an article about psychophysiological insomnia, then start one... because that is what you describe. Just try to back it up with literature and not just your own experiences. Also, even people with insomnia sleep. It's just that their sleep is fragmented..and often very brief. Our subjective experience of how we sleep is actually very poor. Self-report is not a good measure of how much someone sleeps. The only way to really know is to have the person hooked up to a poly, of just a standard EEG set-up. Don't take my word for it, read the literature. MrSandman 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even if true, this "phenomenon" sounds more a philosophical than scientific one, and should be left out.Sfahey 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandman, I'm not going to add anything more to the sleep entry(as you desire), but you haven't answered my question, which is: do you - as a sleep scientist - find it possible to go to sleep while remaining aware that you're going to sleep? In other words, can you fall asleep while being aware that you're doing so?

I'm often in a serious condition of sleep deprivation caused by this 'awareness' torture that plagues me.

I did answer your question. You said in the article that it makes sleep an impossibility.. a statement that is not true. You cannot prevent sleep... it will happen. Your sleep may be severely fragmented, but you do have, at the very least, brief periods of sleep. If it didn't, you would die (refer to the sleep deprivation section of the article). What you describe is referred to as psychophysiological insomnia.

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3128.htm

http://www.sleepdisorderchannel.net/insomnia/causes.shtml

http://www.americaninsomniaassociation.org/causes.htm

http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/insomnia.html

MrSandman 14:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandman says: "You cannot prevent sleep... it will happen. Your sleep may be severely fragmented, but you do have, at the very least, brief periods of sleep. If it didn't, you would die"

Your claim that sleep cannot be prevented is only partially valid. In my experience, if that counts for anything, it can be prevented for quite long. As i have said, i [frequently]have periods where i'm completely unable to sleep, getting 0 hours/0 minutes of sleep, sometimes for over a week - awake, conscious, and not in bed. The only thing i *might* get are microsleeps, but i don't really seem to experience these either. And as i've also said, i've been - as many as five times - in the hospital because of sleep deprivation, suffering acute delirium, and almost complete paralysis of my body. The people at the hospital seem to think that i'm a pitiful, digusting specimen for reaching the severe point that i so often do.They don't understand how i can stay conscious and prevent sleep for so long that i'd get to such a severe point where my health is actually at risk. In fact, there was a worry about the state of my vital signs. I'm not one of those people with sleep state misinterpretation syndrome, underestimating the time i sleep. And no, i don't fit the picture of the typical psychophysiological insomnia patient either. They just don't get to the point of sleep dep. that i do, lifted out of your home on a gurney in a state of semi-paralyzed delirium.

Also, where is the support[med literature] for your claim that i'd die if these brief periods of sleep did not occur. I frequently go week long periods(sometimes longer) without ANY sleep, and yet i haven't died. So just how long would it be before i died of sleep deprivation, and what would be the cause/complications? You seem not to accept that -in a mental illness like mine - the ability to surrender to sleep, to extinguish consciousness can be compromised to the point of having to be hospitalized in a serious condition.

As I have said, read the sleep deprivation of THIS article. You may find some answers. Also, a quick PUBMED search on "effects of sleep deprivation" might help you to.. or.. a google search. The answers are there.

You don't have to believe me, look for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation MrSandman 20:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

MrSandman, you made the claim that sleep deprivation would lead to death, but where's the proof. While this would seem to be true, you haven't provided any citations on any cases of humans actually dying from sleep deprivation. Please find me a reference in the med literature of a human dying from sleep deprivation, and not caused by a disease like FFI=Fatal Familial Insomnia. RB feb/06

Are you not able to do a PUBMED search? I shouldn't have to do it for you.

Additionally, it is rare that people actually have total sleep deprivation for periods that would result in the sepsis (which leads to death), because you will sleep regardless of the situation (which was my point). Even in an abnormal situation, you will experience brief periods of sleep. There is a a lot of animal literature regarding the effects of total sleep deprivation, you only have to look it up. That's not too much to ask. You can start with reading the Wiki article I provided a link to.

PGO spikes

I deleted the reference to PGO spikes. The section on sleep stages refers to the characteristics of a traditional EEG (scalp electrodes). PGO spikes are not seen in a traditional EEG. In order to see PGOs, you need to place depth electrodes in the Pons, Lateral Geniculate Nucleus, or Occipital Cortex. Since we do not place depth electrodes in humans, we do not see this in a traditional poly. A reference to PGO's would be good, but would be better suited for the article on REMS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_eye_movement MrSandman 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

MrSandman, Are you a great sleeper or somethin'??

You say, " because you will sleep regardless of the situation(which was my point) "

Are you absolutely SURE about THAT^^ statement^^, Sandman?

Listen, i suffer from a disorder of involuntary sleep preventing torture. I have a psychological sleep disorder - similar to psychophysiological insomnia - which is taking quite the toll on my health(several hospitalizations in ICU and in mental institutions), life pleasure and family well being. My condition seems to be one without remedy.

My mental problem turns sleep into something like a spot on the wall that disappears only when one focuses on it. The spot only appears when not being looked at directly. This is the concept of sleep to me.

You seem not to respect the fact that i suffer the way i do, or that it's even possible to. I suffer greatly, and sleep only 5-11 hours/week on average and feel the lethargy of death most of the time, yet you, as a highly educated person, seem not to want to give what i say any sort of intellectual consideration, for whatever reason. And when i say i don't sleep, i profoundly mean that i do not sleep, not even for a moment, and for very lengthy periods a majority of the time. This is why i fear dropping dead all the time.

I suffer from precisely the inability to extinguish my own consciousness and mentally surrender to sleep because i'm aware that i must do so in order get to sleep. I'm unable to extinguish my consciousness and sleep because i remain aware of my consciousness, my respiration, and the feeling of my tongue and saliva in my mouth while attempting to get to sleep. It's a torture of self-awareness almost indescribable - the inability to get to sleep even when you're on sleeping pills, have stayed up a week, and in constant worry about whether and when sleep can be achieved again.

Are you willing to concede to the truth of the following statement: A SLEEPER MUST NOT BE AWARE OF HIS OWN DRIFTING-OFF TO SLEEP IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DRIFT OFF TO SLEEP. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO REMAINS CONTINUOUSLY AWARE OF HIMSELF WHEN TRYING TO FALL ASLEEP WILL NOT SUCCEED IN FALLING ASLEEP. Sleep doesn't just magically happen when ones psychology is working against it. You must lose some humanity(and become more animal) in order to sleep, it seems, since high self-awareness(a human trait), or even environmental awareness, prevents sleep onset from occuring. Yes prevents it. In a nutshell, to sleep, you must be able to tune out both internal and external interference.

Now, mrSandman, if you doubt that, i'd urge you to try it yourself; but remember, you MUST remain continuously aware and conscious of your state of consciousness or you WILL drift off to sleep, defeating the experiment.

Concentrate on the position of your tongue within your mouth, how much saliva is in your mouth and if you have to swallow again, how your eyelids feel when they're closed, your breathing rate and depth, controlling every aspect of it, all while you're tring to get to sleep(and do it EVERYDAY, EVERYTIME you try to sleep), etc. etc. etc. THEN, - TELL ME IF SLEEP COMES EASILY, OR AT ALL, UNDER SUCH PSYCHOLOGICAL ADVERSITY - the circumstances i must live and suffer with constantly! If you can sleep under these circumstances then you're either not doing the above experiment correctly or you're one heck of a great sleeper - effectively a sleeping superman !!! RB

"only 5-11 hours/week"... that is still sleep. My argument was that you said "sleep is an impossibility"... yet you admit that you will eventually fall asleep. Do you see the problem here? Again... just read the literature. This will be my last response to this.

for the person with the sleep/self-awareness problem

I am a physician, and have many patients whose sleep problems are related to an underlying physical or psychological disorder. If you are sleeping that little, please consult a doctor before it DOES cause you serious harm.

Re: Sleep Self Awareness paradox.

Hi, I've seen doctors, been to hospitals and mental institutions - and i've gotten nowhere with regard to being helped or cured. I get very little sleep, which could mean my mortality, which i am profoundly frightened and saddened by. What an idiotic, pathetic waste this is making of my life.

No one can make a person go to sleep, not even the person himself. You cannot Will sleep. Sleep is a paradox because it is a matter of surrendering to a gradual extinguishing of self awareness, but if that self awareness remains persisent during the period of surrendering to that extinction of consciousness, sleep will be made extremely difficult to come by. Surrendering to sleep is voluntary, but when you have a problem of a sort of evil counter-Will working against your desire to sleep, the situation grows progressively frustrating - and dangerous. A central philosophical question is whether I am causing this torture to myself, or whether a something as yet unidentified is - such as some part of my brain with which I Myself would not identify. Certainly, my desire, my Will wants that i should sleep, so why am i tortured the way i am, and what part of Myself is torturing me? Self awareness during the process of settling into sleep effectively chases sleep onset away.

Sleep Postions

What postion(s) are the best to sleep in? 70.111.251.203 13:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

it depends. When you sleep on your back.. it makes it a little harder for you to breath.. especially if you are overweight. But overall.. it just depends on what is comfortable for you...and what type of surface you are sleeping on.

MrSandman 16:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sleep for Children

Are children recommended the 8 hours of sleep as well? Seems to me like they need more, especially babies. 70.111.251.203 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Babies spend (need) about 15-20 hours per day sleeping (1day old to 3-5 months). We need about 10 to 14 hours of sleep a night until we reach puberty (around 13 years old)...then it tapers off to around 8 hours.. but the amount of time one needs varies between individuals. Before 1 year, babies spend more time in REM sleep (around 50%), compared to adults (15-20%). Within the first few months, a babies sleep cycle is not controlled by a circadian rhythm... they need to eat about every 2 hours, so they sleep a lot, but not for long periods at a time...after 3 to five months, they start sleeping more during the night. It is thought that sleep helps the babies brain develop (especially REM). Severe sleep disruption early can have long lasting consequences.

Check out the "Theories regarding the function of sleep" section for more detail regarding the importance of REM sleep.

Newborn 16 to 20 hours per day 3 weeks 16 to 18 hours per day 6 weeks 15 to 16 hours per day 4 months 9 to 12 hours plus two naps (2 to 3 hours each) 6 months 11 hours plus two naps (1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours each) 9 months 11 to 12 hours plus two naps (1 to 2 hours each) 1 year 10 to 11 hours plus two naps (1 to 2 hours each) 18 months 13 hours plus one or two naps (1 to 2 hours each) 2 years 11 to 12 hours plus one nap (2 hours) 3 years 10 to 11 hours plus one nap (2 hours) 4 to 5 years 10 to 12 hours. Usually no nap.

MrSandman 13:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sleep/Archive_1&oldid=791889139"