Talk:Circadian rhythm

message: http://www.physorg.com/news174228584.html looks interesting and maybe relevant to this article.  70.90.174.101 (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps better at Suprachiasmatic nuclei.  But anything this fresh needs be accepted by more research teams than the first one, to qualify for Wikipedia.  - Hordaland (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  article 

message: Under Circadian_rhythm#Enforced_longer_cycles it reqiures a citation for people, average, having a slightly longer that 24h circadian rhythm. The following seems to be a valid source, cited in Psychology: Themes and Variations, a first year uni textbook for psych. Anybody with a bit more familiarity could add it.
Czeisler, C.A., Buxton, O.M., & Khalsa, S. (2005). The human circadian timing system and sleep-wake regulation. In M.H. Kryger, T. Roth, & W.C. Dement (Eds.), "Principles and practice of sleep medicine". Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-72-160797-7%2F50038-0
70.26.108.98 (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A source?

message: I have a suggestion for this page. I would just do it myself, but I am not well-versed in this field and would hate to mess things up. This page is written for scientists only in many places. While I support the use of technical language when it is necessary to use it, I think it's been significantly abused here. Take this for example:  "Although circadian rhythms are endogenous, they are adjusted (entrained) to the environment by external cues called zeitgebers, the primary one of which is daylight". 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.172.210 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not intended to be written for scientists only -- the goal is to say things in the simplest terminology that makes the statements fully correct.  I think perhaps though we can at least use a more common word than "endogenous". Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: What do you guys think about a section on adjusting your circadian rhythm? Most people use light exposure, melatonin supplements, and more recently food exposure.
http://parentingsquad.com/easy-way-to-reset-your-sleep-cycle-stop-eating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.84.200 (talk • contribs) 
:I think a section on that might be good, if the material is based on reputable sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ways to reset circadian rhythm 

message: Question at Template talk:Light Ethology#Convert to sidebar? that you might be able to help with, or give feedback/suggestions on. (please reply there) Thanks. —Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light Ethology navbox - footer or sidebar 

message: It seems a bit odd, but I don't find anything on the page about being overtired? It seems fairly essential, and yets its missing? Unifoe (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the influence of the circadian cycle on sleepiness, I agree that the article ought to discuss it a bit more, although it isn't as simple a topic as one might think. Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overtirering? 

message: Early research into circadian rhythms suggested that most people preferred a day closer to 25 hours when isolated from external stimuli like daylight and timekeeping. However, this research was faulty because it failed to shield the participants from artificial light. Although subjects were shielded from time cues (like clocks) and daylight, the researchers were not aware of the phase-delaying effects of indoor electric lights.[28] The subjects were allowed to turn on light when they were awake and to turn it off when they wanted to sleep. Electric light in the evening delayed their circadian phase. These results became well-known.[29]
To me, this sounds contradictory. Circadian rhythm is described as an internal master clock. The article then goes on to say, however, that one's activity pattern can be influenced by the presence of light. This seems to imply that the circadian rhythm, as described, does not actually exist, since activity is driven by light as well, and not the supposed internal master clock. The quoted passage appears to be starting with the conclusion (that a 24hr circadian rhythm exists) and then faults the study for not corroborating it. Working merely from the evidence, and using available light as a control factor, the study seems to show that there is no 24hr internal clock. Shielding subjects from artificial light, as the passage puts it, would invalidate the control variable. If the study had done that, it would set the amount of light available during the day to the same amount assumed by the circadian rhythm theory, and would not prove that the 24hr cycle was driven internally as opposed to being driven by the availability of light. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me try to explain in a different way.  Consider these three conditions:  (1) the lights are on all the time; (2) the lights are off all the time; (3) subjects can turn the lights on or off whenever they want to.  None of those conditions impose a circadian rhythmicity, but subjects in all of them nevertheless show rhythms of approximately 24 hours.  However, each of the conditions gives a slightly different period.  Which of them is the truecircadian period?  The question really doesn't have an answer. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To say "This seems to imply that the circadian rhythm, as described, does not actually exist" is reading too much into the research. It's quite clear that a circadian rhythm does exist - even if it can be interfered with through the use of natural or artificial light. The quoted paragraph doesn't address what the period of the natural circadian rhythm actually is, it only explains how researchers came to conclude that it was 25 hours. I really don't think this is contradictory. Ben Aveling 11:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain why this is faulty 

message: *Potentially Malicious Domain: (EXPLOIT, RBN Known Malvertiser IP 22)
*hxxp://www.dailygalaxy.com/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/06f7d7c43c549e5e370a1e64d961bbbb9f4be55c29111d41e93ae9bb66489f23/analysis/1374427632/
*JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/5ea1609b649e14ccfd84fec0d7e9d13cb0f885876f0ef5fae0407d23490ecddc/analysis/1374428349/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/192346fedd2cc52353f89fd93fe1da383b6fa8a969c4c27f1fa663d4a40c3ae4/analysis/1374428351/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2656324fdda8179413cf416bd559e5f6f13864886a6d31907928e6334e64ebfa/analysis/1374428355/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/a9dc933ca440b54c82be1fc9a71df252cf738ca3d908814adc656d9ffcc7c6ed/analysis/1374428365/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/42430671c0fd1332eeb990373a1707da334520e2bae48d1dc9ee6df47b728125/analysis/1374428367/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/8eb65132b441b07193c467814570e2c0959ceff07e35149247f531dde514782f/analysis/1374428377/
*REFERENCE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=49695ac9748fc84c3953dd8db54a661f52fd8be4
*http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=3902995
*SEE ALSO:
*http://quttera.com/detailed_report/www.dailygalaxy.com
*http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.dailygalaxy.com
*http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.dailygalaxy.com
--Gary Dee 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malware Link Removal 

message: I'm alarmed at the state of this article.  Please review WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.  This is not an uncommon topic; secondary reviews are available.  Recent secondary reviews should be used.  There is no reason for blog sourcing here.Per WP:CITEVAR, the earliest cited versions of this article show that the citation format used was the one generated by the Diberri BogHog PMID citation filling template.  When I started working here, I found citation formatting all over the place, and made them consistent to the original citation format.  Please follow.  Also, there is an outdated list in Further reading that could probably be pruned, and the link farm in See also should be pruned or worked into the article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The extremely poor sourcing in this article makes no sense; PubMed shows dozens of recent secondary reviews, and quite a few with free full-text available.  Why are they not used?  This article contains numerous strings of primary sources yielding [{WP:OR|original research]] or giving undue weight to certain aspects, when there are gobs of good secondary reviews that could be used.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: QUESTION: So, a year and a half later, is the sourcing better now?  Just asking, AstroU (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CITEVAR, MEDRS, and primary sources 

message: From the current issue of the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics.
*"If we more closely align school schedules with adolescents' circadian rhythms and sleep needs, we will have students who are more alert, happier, better prepared to learn, and aren't dependent on caffeine and energy drinks just to stay awake in class."
*"Most teenagers undergo a biological shift to a later sleep-wake cycle, which can make early school start times particularly challenging. In this study, we looked at whether a relatively modest, temporary delay in school start time would change students' sleep patterns, sleepiness, mood and caffeine use."
*"Later School Start Time is Associated with Improved Sleep and Daytime Functioning in Adolescents,"
--SvenAERTS (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you seen Start School Later movement?  Hordaland (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for collaboration: paragraph on align school schedules with adolescents' circadian rhythms and sleep needs

message: This is suggested by the maintenance (heritability) of circadian rhythms in fruit flies after several hundred generations in constant laboratory conditions,[13] as well as in creatures in constant darkness in the wild, and by the experimental elimination of behavioural but not physiological circadian rhythms in quail.
-This sentence should be made into two sentences. It is too lengthy which can get confusing when reading it.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexabadura (talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Under the heading "Origin"

message: Review about circadian metabolism doi:10.1210/er.2015-1007 JFW | T@lk 22:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endocrine Reviews 

message: I believe this is a citation for the following sentence: "Other physiological changes that occur according to a circadian rhythm include heart rate"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.110.26 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  heart rate changes - citation 

message: What does it mean? Equinox (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Dictionary of Circadian Physiology, the mesor is "An estimate of central tendency of the distribution of values of an oscillating variable (the average value around which the variable oscillates). The mesor is a circadian rhythm-adjusted mean based on the parameters of a cosine function fitted to the raw data. Note: When a process is known to be rhythmic, and the data points are not equidistant or the sample size is small, the Mesor often provides a more appropriate unbiased estimator of central tendency than does the arithmetic mean of the raw data."  We should probably have a short article about that concept rather than a redirect to this article, but I wouldn't be capable of writing one without more research than I feel like doing. Looie496 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "mesor" redirect here? 

message: Caffine at bedtime pushes back the body's circadian clock.
 Headline-1: Caffeine at Night Does More Than Keep You Up Late
* http://www.newser.com/story/212954/caffeine-at-night-does-more-than-keep-you-up-late.html
QUOTE: "SCIENTISTS FIND THAT ESPRESSO 3 HOURS BEFORE BEDTIME DELAYS THE CIRCADIAN CLOCK ... caffeine has another physiological impact on sleep by delaying the body's natural surge in the production of the sleep hormone melatonin, which in turn pushes back the body's circadian clock. "To our surprise, no one had really tested this question," one of the researchers tells NPR. "What we're seeing here now is another way that caffeine impacts our physiology that we didn't know about before in humans." The problem in this case is that the circadian clock is "present in cells throughout our entire body," says the researcher. "It's in your fat cells; it's in your muscle cells." Messing with it appears to play a role in a wide range of health problems, from obesity to cancer. Many studies have recently suggested that bright light at night, especially the blue light emanating from our screens, impedes melatonin production." -- AstroU (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New NEWS today, for future editing  

message: Suggested file to add to this article. — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest we do not add it.  --Hordaland (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be helpful to say a word or two about why it shouldn't be added. Looie496 (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably believe that the truth of statements is based on if the person has been cancelled or shown virtue. ;) … Yes, certain people seriously “think” like this. — 89.0.49.164 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Nye for National Science Foundation 

message: I'm noticing a lot of tags in the Reference section that say, "non-primary source needed." Primary sources are sometimes the only sources available, and there's no rule against them. Instead, they need to be used "with care." I've always understood that to mean that when poking around on Google Scholar, if I find something that seems useful and informative, I'll first check to see if it reflects the mainstream of scholarly opinion. For example, a single research paper is nothing, but if it's been frequently cited that's better. My next question is: has the research been independently corroborated? If so, do the experts in the field take it seriously, or are they just ignoring it? Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, but it is usually easier to see whether something reflects mainstream opinion by looking at how it is covered in authoritative review articles.  Using review articles as sources whenever possible makes our articles easier to maintain. Looie496 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-primary source needed? 

message: Impact on sleep doi:10.1210/er.2016-1083 JFW | T@lk 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endocrine Reviews  

message: Who opens an article with that phrase for an encyclopedia? 173.15.73.108 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we should probably fix that. PriceDL (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegible to Common Readers 

message: Hello, 
My name is Omer, and I'm a journalist and young researcher based in Israel. Over the past two years, me and Rona Aviram, a clock biologist from the Weizmann Institute of Science, have studied this article and the one for Circadian Rhythms to try to understand how science and Wikipedia interact. What began as an argument between two friends from two different worlds - me from the history and philosophy of science, and Rona from biology -  turned into a full on study of how scientific knowledge is collectively created on Wikipedia.
I am super excited to say the paper is now out on the peer-reviewed Journal of Biological Rhythms. In the paper, we trace how certain ideas permeated from academic literature into these articles and also focused on who edited and contributed content. Specifically, we focused on how people like Hordaland who had personal knowledge despite having no official academic training, were able to contribute in way that in the past was impossible. 
For the next few weeks that article will be free to download from the SAGE website (you just need to create a SAGE user name, which is free... I hope to put in on some preprint archive once I figure out which version I can legally do this for) 
I'm having some technical difficulties uploading the figures, which I would love to share with you, and will try to do so soon
We would love to hear your feedback
Omer Benjakob and Rona Avira --Omer Benjakob (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your analysis and fascinating insights into the edits and evolution of the Circadian clock and Circadian rhythm articles. I find most interesting is the evidence that you provide that Wikipedia is also influencing the scientific community, even though Wikipedia's target audience is the general public. The WP:Signpost highlight academic studies on Wikipedia, so I think this paper should be highlighted there. Thanks again for providing such an interesting read. Boghog (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clockwork Wiki: This article was featured in an academic paper on Wikipedia   

message: See
*   Published April 17, 2018.
I was going to add this to the boxes above but that is built from newspapers or the like.  Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice writeup on your work here! 

message: In the article, in many place, times for certain events are noted.
Example:
:“[…] the daily body temperature minimum occurred at about 04:00 (4 a.m.) for morning types, but at about 06:00 (6 a.m.) for evening types.”
But it is never mentioned in relation to what they were meant.
The actual time of sunrise or sunset isn’t mentioned. The time zone isn’t mentioned. The time of year and latitude aren’t mentioned.
Meaning those times are pretty much useless. They could be off from the true local time (based on the sun) by literal hours.
Most of the time, not even if this was still based on studies using artificial light was mentioned.
Can we fix this?
— 89.0.49.164 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless times throughout the article.