One of the major premises in the book "Why We Sleep" by Matthew Walker is precisely this phenomenon. We know that sleep helps to repair and restore organ systems, and it can also boost memory. This is exciting to see more connections as evidence supporting sleep as one of the most important things we do.
I’ve read this years prior. I don’t see how it’s relevant to this article. But if a whole book’s premise is invalid because of some bored dude wrote an article, then so be it.
The source of an argument irrelevant to the soundness of an argument, otherwise it's an example of the genetic fallacy, a form of ad hominem, a fallacy of relevance.
That's technically true about argument in some specific contexts. But it isn't in practice true a lot of the time, and is especially irrelevant here when it's not just citing it for an argument, but as proof of the argument.
It's hard to trust a conclusion if three quarters of the argument offered in support are inaccurate. At least, it should invite a healthy dose of skepticism.
Calling the author of the article "some bored duded that wrote an article" is not a really strong argument against considering the points it made.
Peek and her team found that muscle repair after injury was greater when mice were active or awake compared to when they were inactive or resting.
It seems sleep alone isn't the most important factor. Otherwise more sleep would linearly be beneficial to health and recovery, but, from a courtesy look into it, it appears sleep above 9 hours is inversely correlated with negative health.
