...does this mean that two or three such naps is the same as 3-4 hours of sleep during the night?
It's said that napping during the day for 15-20 minutes will have the same effect as one and a half hour during the night, but is this cumulative?
In this case I assume that you actually fall asleep during the 15-minutes naps as well, so you have a chance to REM. :p
This is probably a rather far-fetched assumption, but it doesn't seem all that unlikely either.
What? Why is a 15 minute nap during the day the same as 90 minutes of sleep during the night? How does the time of the day affect sleep?
I'm not really sure either, but from what I've heard 15 minutes during the day is obviously the same as 90 minutes during the night.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotora
Don't know why really, but maybe because you don't usually sleep during the days and therefore it has more effect or something.
I've heard somewhere that you shouldn't just believe stuff you hear from other people without any proof. Dunno why really. Maybe because people are full of :bou::bou::bou::bou: or something.
Well, I've heard it from doctors on several sites and read about it in health magazines etc, so I'm fairly sure it is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotora
It seems to me like it should be theoretically possible to repeat this during the day and effectively lower your need of sleep at night.
Doesn't sound right to me. Sleeping for short periods during the day tends to make people feel groggy and grumpy when they wake up. 15-20 minutes isn't long enough for the average person to enter a deep enough sleep to get into the state where the body is at rest.
I think it'll just tire you out because you won't actually be waking up feeling rested.
I can assure you that 15-minute naps will not make up for sleep depravation. Speaking from experience here.
That depends on how long you rest, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo-Nercy
15 minutes can actually make you feel energized, although an hour is probably too much. :p
Sleeping when the sun is out does not magically make it more effective. However, if you accept as a given that you slept 6-9 hours that night, then a shorter nap during the time your body is used to being awake may plausibly be as effective a boost as a greater amount of sleep you take when you've been up 16+ hours.
That being said, I am still skeptical of this specific 90 minutes claim. How would this have been tested?
There is actually science behind this theory. I've seen it many times, and it seems plausible to me.
Your body, while sleeping, has many stages of sleep. The most important is REM, or Rapid Eye Movement sleep. This is the type of sleep where the logic centers of your brain shut down, giving your brain rest and allowing you to dream. You can trick your body into giving you more REM sleep, by becoming used to a certain sleep schedule. If you nap once during the day and sleep 6 hours at night for an extended period of time, soon your body will try to make this time as effective as possible, by giving you more REM sleep during that time, and yes, it is cumulative. I have heard of a method where instead of sleeping at night at all, you just take 5 20-30 minute naps throughout a day, and I have also heard that if you mess up the schedule, you become incredibly tired.
Here is what Cracked.com says, and here is their in-text citation.
Yeah, the uberman sleep schedule. It'll take about a month to get used to, but theoretically, you could claim about half of the time you spend sleeping at night back. If you sleep too much, even by five minutes, you'll slip from Stage I (REM) into Stage II sleep, where your body is generating all of those drowsiness waves that make you hate life when you wake up (waking up during Stage III or IV will totally smurf you up). The most important thing to know is that more sleep isn't necessarily better, it's the pattern that matters more.Quote:
Originally Posted by leader of mortals
Most people can't handle the uberman sleep schedule.
EDIT: I suck at remembering the actual names of stuff.
I've been tempted to try the uberman schedule but it seems like it's too easy to mess it up, and too hard to get real-life commitments to accomodate you.
I believe Leonardo DaVinci used to sleep like that. He would take like multiple 30 minute naps a day, and the rest of the day, he was just working.
I have the ability to fall into a deep sleep for about 20 minutes and come out feeling great. During my hour lunch break, I drive home, eat real fast, and take a 20 minute nap. It's awesome. Though, when I don't get that nap, it sucks.
I really suck at controlling my sleep, and taking any kind of nap during the day just makes me get my night's sleep later, and therefore get up later... you get the idea :(
I think the phrase you are looking for is "polyphasic sleep"Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelYeah, the uberman sleep schedule. It'll take about a month to get used to, but theoretically, you could claim about half of the time you spend sleeping at night back. If you sleep too much, even by five minutes, you'll slip from Stage I (REM) into Stage II sleep, where your body is generating all of those drowsiness waves that make you hate life when you wake up (waking up during Stage III or IV will totally smurf you up). The most important thing to know is that more sleep isn't necessarily better, it's the pattern that matters more.Quote:
Originally Posted by leader of mortals
Most people can't handle the uberman sleep schedule.
EDIT: I suck at remembering the actual names of stuff.
Unfortunately, for it to work, it requires 30 minutes of sleep every 4 hours, which means it can only be done by people who don't have jobs and thus have no special need for extra waking time.
I think one of the famous old-time yanks -- Thomas Eddison? almost killed himself trying to live on a polyphasic schedule. Pretty sure it was Eddison, but my mind switches off when it comes to American history. Good thing I'm not a yank or I'd never have made it through high school.