Talk:Polyphasic sleep

message: It seems the pie chart for biphasic sleep does not fit the description of biphasic sleep. The pie chart just shows monophasic with a lunchtime nap. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if biphasic looked like the second pie chart in this image?
http://i.imgur.com/p5qxL.png
If there is agreement, could the pie chart be changed to correct this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.31.202 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's segmented sleep, not biphasic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.146.250 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pie chart for Biphasic sleep 

message: First off, let me say that I love (and I mean LOVE) the pie charts at the bottom. But the "uberman" "everyman" blah blah blah is just not credible. Or if it is, it needs a better link. The current one goes to a blog by some guy that links to a even less credible pseudoscience website. 
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think it's irresponsible and dangerous to be advertising sleeping on these cycles on Wikipedia without solid academic research to back them up. As far as I can tell, these "uberman" sleep cycles are just fads that have no actual scientific basis. What does everyone else think? What should we do about this section? I don't even think it's meets Wikipedia's "noteworthy" designation. Leave comments if you don't want it deleted. Sean Egan (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  There were earlier some avid defenders of uberman and all that.  Perhaps they're gone now?  --Hordaland (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There were indeed some avid defenders, such as Federico Pistono (User:Pain).  See Talk:Polyphasic sleep/Archive 1.  They seem quieter or maybe even inactive now.  —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree that it may be irresponsible/dangerous to advertise alternative sleep cycles without scientific basis. However, I disagree on the notability of the topic in that it is notable enough to warrant a page, just because its a large enough fad. Make it clear that the alternative sleep cycles do not have any scientific basis, but they are enough of a "thing" to be included. If, at the very least, from a factual standpoint. Which is, basically, "Uberman is a sleep cycle invented by 'so-and-so', it follows 'this' pattern". Don't make claims about it being "better" or "worse". If those kinds of claims are made, phrase them like "People claim" or in some other manner that doesn't imply the truthiness of the statement.  Jarwain (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of credible citations 

message: I think this article should be renamed to "Biphasic and polyphasic sleep", and Segmented sleep being merged into it as well. All these terms describe a similar topic. The terms are slightly different, but it would much less confusing and fragmented if we had one single article that explained the differences. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Biphasic and polyphasic sleep

message: Piotr Woźniak is mentioned on the page, with a citation needed. The one below should work. Perhaps someone could add it for me? 
http://www.supermemo.com/articles/polyphasic.htm Geneven (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a newer article (2010) by Piotr Woźniak on the subject.  I'll add it, but as it is his own writing (blog), perhaps someone might add an outside source stating what P.W.'s position is?  --Hordaland (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotr Woźniak 

message: I removed some pie charts from the article; see the #Improperly-sourced content section below.  An interesting side question is the following.  Were the pie charts illegally copied from the identical pie charts found in an article posted at <highexistence.com>?  I suspect the answer is "no".  The original .png versions of the pie charts were uploaded to Commons in Dec. '08.  The uploader marked them as "Own work" and released them to the public domain.  The <highexistence.com> article appears to be newer.  The pie charts included in that article were uploaded to http://static.highexistence.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/, which implies that the article wasn't posted until May '09.  —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pie charts and copyright 

message: Dear friends,
I have removed some improperly-sourced content from the article.  Our rules (see "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)") frown upon adding health content to Wikipedia unless you cite a peer-reviewed medical source.  Unfortunately, HighExistence.com is not such a source.
Please see also the yellow box, which starts with the words "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content", at the top of this talk page.
My main concern regarding the improperly-sourced content is the "Hours saved daily" column.  I am concerned for two reasons:
#  The column implies that polyphasic sleep can allow a person to save time by sleeping less without any unwanted medical side effects.  If you'd like to make such a claim, I'd like to see a peer-reviewed medical source.
#  The column implies that monophasic sleepers need to sleep exactly eight hours per night.  This is a misrepresentation of the recommendations of modern medicine.
#*  In the US, the National Sleep Foundation recommends that healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 65 should get between 7 and 9 hours of sleep per day, though it adds that some adults may need more or less than that.  Nowhere do the foundation's sleep time recommendations say that they should get precisely eight hours of sleep per day.
#*  The foundation adds that younger individuals (infants, children, and teenagers) should sleep even more than that.  The younger a child is, the more they should sleep.
If, for some reason, we settle upon a consensus that the improperly-sourced content should be restored to the article, then we should at least remove that one column.
Kind regards,
—Unforgettableid (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I"d like to go the other way.  This article keeps getting sourced by people talking about how great Everyman and Uberman are; and the great scientific opinion is that these reduced-sleep schedules are harmful.  This article's content doesn't properly cover this, and so many are apparently reading this article and concluding that polyphasic sleep is a great way to increase waking hours and waste less time sleeping the day away.  Something is wrong here.  --John Moser (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improperly-sourced content 

message: Live the Dream: Men's Health UK, Men's Health Germany  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.39.153 (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biphasic and polyphasic sleep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228064318/http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/innovation/tdc-publication-tp13960e-13960e-602.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/innovation/tdc-publication-tp13960e-13960e-602.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It isn't known whether or not the NREM 2 stage of sleep is necessary for two reasons.
*1. The reduced sleep spindle or k complex activity during sleep as a result of this stage being removed might not mean anything considering the fact that most of that stuff goes on in SWS sleep
*2. The sleep spindle and k complex activity may be shifted over into SWS sleep during repartitioning after being adapted to a schedule.
People primarily going after the uberman and dymaxion schedules are missing the point because people don't really try those schedules for anything more than fun. The schedules that people are seriously interested in are the Everyman schedules and tri-core dual-core schedules, which emphasise getting the proper SWS sleep.
The Wikipedia article on this topic needs to remain consistent with the current exploration being done on this topic, which is chokingly limited to the online community. Not a lot of institutional research is being done on the contingencies of the architecture of intentional polyphasic sleeping. Funds are being drawn for the purpose of getting professional research done. But the ultimate goal is to minimize time spent asleep and time spent awake in a healthy way so the idea is to keep this page of information open to the possibilities.
YelloJello33 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: NREM2.. Necessary?

message: FYI. I've removed the content added in April about scheduled polyphasic sleep.  There were several issues with it – it didn't have citations, and it used a lot of jargon without defining terms – but most importantly, that isn't what this article is about.  It's unfortunate that "polyphasic sleep" means different things to different people, but this article has been about biphasic and polyphasic sleep in general, not about polyphasic sleep as practiced by some people to minimize their sleep time, for at least a decade.  In addition to the added content, the edits removed existing content and restructured the article to change its whole emphasis.
To add content about the second meaning of polyphasic sleep there are two good options.  Someone could add content to the Biphasic and polyphasic sleep#Scheduled napping to achieve more time awake section in this article, which could certainly use it, but that would be probably work best if it's limited to a few paragraphs.  Or one could create a whole new article and have the two articles link to each other.  But repurposing this article to be about scheduled polyphasic sleep isn't an option. (Okay, technically it is, but only with discussion here first, which I suspect wouldn't reach that consensus.) Dan Bloch (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scheduled polyphasic sleep content 

message: In the Interrupted Sleep section, Wehr's 1992 study is said to have demonstrated that, 
"At first the participants slept for about eleven hours, presumably making up for their sleep debt. After this the subjects began to sleep much as people in pre-industrial times were claimed to have done."
However, the study itself reads that,
"When individuals were transferred from the long photoperiod to the short photoperiod, their sleep episode (the interval between the first and last 30-s epoch of sleep during the night) expanded from 7.7 ± 2.2h to 11.0 ± 0.8h (mean s.d., t = 11.754, P <0.001, N = 7). The cumulative amount of sleep  per night also increased from 7.26 ± 0.21h to 8.36 ± 0.82h (mean s.d., t = 4.145, P < 0.006).  In each case, sleep divided into (usually) two bouts, several hours in duration, with a  1-3h waking interval between  them"
I wonder if, perhaps, this 11 hour overall sleep window was misinterpreted as having been a continuous bout of sleep? The chart in figure 1 also does not seem to display any uninterrupted sleep of that length.
Kilometers to Verona (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect interpretation of study results? 

message: This article appears to go to great lengths to downplay and deny benefits of polyphasic sleep. For example
"There is no scientific evidence that this [polyphasic sleep] is effective."
"A 2021 review found no evidence supporting the benefits of polyphasic sleep but instead adverse physical, mental and performance effects."
This is the tone of the whole article, yet if I simply follow the link to the article for "nap" I find a whole section on Benefits. Apparently this article became political somehow. 98.156.185.48 (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. "Polyphasic sleep" has two meanings.  The second meaning, briefly mentioned in this article, refers to reduced-sleep schedules which are supposed to improve productivity.  The negative sources are directed at this meaning but the second of the paragraphs you mention incorrectly refers to the primary meaning.  I've fixed this. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits? No scientific evidence?