I'm a self diagnosed hypersomniac (I can sleep ALOT) it helps me feel very rested from a total of 6 hours as opposed to the 11-14 hours it typically takes for me to wake up naturally.

"The downside to this sleep schedule is that it can be inflexible. I’ve read that you can delay naps by an hour if necessary, but missing a nap can cause a rapid crash that takes a while to recover from."

This is very true. If I skip a nap one day after work, I typically pay for it by sleeping 2-3 times as long the next short cycle.

It's definitely beneficial to me. Sleeping 10-12 hours a night and not being rested wastes alot of my not-at-work time and cuts into social obligations. Bi-phastic works for me!

I feel I should mention that the time I am awake with this schedule I typically am 'rested' and very alert. I had issues adjusting to the 8-5 life because my body demands so much sleep natively. When I was getting 8-9 hours of continued sleep in one night I was waking up groggy and not really getting started until 1-2 in the afternoon. This cycle corrected it.

It's also not as rigid as you'd expect. I can move the start and end times of the nap/bedtime around approximately +/- 2 hours and still feel alright. Altho a nap starting at >7pm just feels 'weird.' It's the full skippage of a nap that wrecks shop.

I found last summer that changing my diet to mostly raw foods allowed me to sleep much less and still feel awake.

Anyway, it's nice to see somebody who has made this sleep schedule work for them and still maintains some flexibility. That's the chief complaint I have read is how rigid you have to be with it to make it work.

I'll try your way, maybe it'll help. Thanks!

One day I'm going to try a polyphasic schedule "just because" but I wonder how it would be when getting lots of exercise.

I do have a combination of both allergies (hayfever) and asthma (standard nerd from the 80s!) but I control both with occasional rescue style prescriptions instead of a daily pill regiment.

The sleep cycle itself feels alot more natural to me. My partner constantly mentions envy in the speed at which I fall asleep each night. That's why I think I've stuck with it. Gives me more awake time away from work (bonus) and feels right.

http://www.supermemo.com/help/faq/polyphasic.htm

I am a neuroscientist and I study sleep (genetics of sleep, to be precise); I am amused and intrigued by the amount of threads concerning sleep I found on HN. Only in the last week I think I could find 4 or so.

May I suggest few hints on the matter? As a general rule:

- there is no a common "minimum amount of sleep". Sleeping time, sleeping needs and ability to cope with sleep deprivation are different in different people. By the age of 30 you should definitely be able to know what your needs are.

- the accepted rule is: if you need an alarm clock to wake up in the morning, then you are sleep deprived. sleep deprivation is detrimental for your performance

- if you cannot achieve a night of resting sleep you might be experiencing a sleep problem. sleep apnea is very frequent and very likely if you are overweight.

- don't believe of self-reported sleeping patterns, especially if they come from eccentric people or even worse if they date back centuries. Italian dictator Mussolini used to have one person staging in his office at night: he would leave the lights on and move around occasionally so that people looking at the window would believe the Duce never slept. The idea that sleep is for weak and superhero don't need sleep is just BS, of course.

- Let me conclude with a thought. I like to hear your opinions about this. I do research for living and I have learned that putting way too much effort in a very risky business can be very dangerous for your motivation. If you work 80/90 hours a week on something that will fail (and startups, like research, have a high risk of failure) you may end up being so demotivated that you will likely not give yourself a second chance. What I want to say is: if you work so much that it gets to the point when is not fun any more, maybe you should consider slowing down.

I have no problems getting to sleep, am not usually tired during the day, and have none of the usual symptoms of sleep apnea, but if I didn't use an alarm clock or similar, I would sleep 12-15 hours a day no problems. Yet, there's no way I can consider that acceptable so I make judicial use of alarms, and I feel just great once I get over 5 minutes or so of sleep inertia.

Often, I can set an alarm for 6 or 7.5 hours after I fall asleep, and I feel great when the alarm goes off and can get up right away. Yet, if I didn't use that alarm, I would not be waking up naturally for several more hours. Perhaps I'm just a deep sleeper?

Well, except that it was around 30 that my needs started changing. Until then I often needed 8-9 hours a day of sleep, but sometime after 30 I noticed that I wasn't sleeping as long (and I'd long been out of the habit of using an alarm clock until last year, because I worked for myself and never scheduled anything in the early morning). Now my average is more like 7 hours a day, and it's not uncommon for me to wake up after 5 or 6 hours feeling just as rested as I used to after 9.

Talking about sleep schedules with my father led to the interesting revelation that this happened to him about my age, and it continued decreasing right along, so that now, in his 80s, he's only sleeping about 4 hours a night, and doesn't feel that he needs more. So, I guess I've got that to look forward to. :)

30y is pretty much the time when you enter into your "adult phase" that will last for the next 30 years or so.

If we're able to get less good sleep as we age, and sleep is essential for mental acuity (forming memories, etc) and for physical health (growth hormone, etc), i've long wondered if the two are related.

Some of them say sleep has something to do with maintaining a plausible number of neuronal connections (synapses) in your brain: the more you learn and do during the day, the more synapses you build, the more sleep you need to clean up for the next day. As you age, your brain plasticity decreases, i.e. the ability for your brain to change the number of synapses is not as good. This is why you might need less sleep than when you were a young kid.

If you are interested in the topic, I'd suggest to have a look here: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/waking-up-to-sleep Some of the talks can be of interest to the general reader. The Science Network is a very good source of good-quality easy to access scientific material.

I thought it was clear from looking at other animals that a large part of the value of sleep relates to saving energy. Animals that do something like sleep while staying awake burn more energy but don't drown / get eaten as much which makes up for that. Granted, there is other things that happen as part of sleep, but saying we have no idea when some things are fairly well known seems to be over the top.

After centuries of interest we still don't know why we sleep. We have no idea, really. We know rats die if you sleep deprive them for long enough (between 10-30 days) but we don't know what they die of. I work with fruitflies myself and investigating sleep function is what I am trying to do.

The human body saves a lot more energy than one frankfurter bun though sleep by simply not moving all that much. Clearly the brain and body are doing something useful while you sleep, but if it needs to do that stuff and walk around / be awake at the same time it would use even more energy.

Bats, sleep 18-20 hours per day vs. giraffes which sleep 3-4 hours per day etc.

PS: REM sleep is another issue, but the differences in human sleep cycles suggest that sleeping less is not the only goal.

I see. I think what you are talking about is not even energy expenditure but what we call "the null hypothesis". Basically says that there might be no other active function than sleep other than resting as a mean to escape predators and not using energy. This is far from being the accepted hypothesis on sleep function: in fact there is basically only one guy who still talks about this (Jerome Siegel, UCLA); the rest of the community is pretty much convinced that this is not the case. I'd suggest you reading this on the matter: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.... (it is open access).

PS: Your liver does many things necessary for you to live. It also does many things that help you live a better life. Talking about what your liver or sleep does, without including the useful side effects is not the full story. Sleep deprivation hinders memory formation in humans and hinders reaction times. Are those related to the core function of sleep or just a codependence developed due to other useful features of sleep? I don’t think there is a clear separation between the two.

Edit: I can't read that link.

I, myself, have nothing much to add in the way of hard facts, but using logic, I think that sleep-as-an-energy-saver seems off. Sleep seems like a highly vulnerable state for early animals. If the only initial benefit of sleep was energy conservation, it seems like animals that simply chose to rest would have an edge upon those that slept. By resting, they'd conserve the same energy, but would stay alert and responsive.

And it interests me that animals that cannot rest (sharks, for example) still sleep.

Is screwing with my sleep cycle a bad idea at this age? Or is age irrelevant? Biphasic sleep especially sounds attractive to me, but I do not know whether it would be healthy to try.

Given that you are a sleep researcher, I was hoping perhaps you could provide some insight?

At your age your sleep pattern is already pretty much messed up by itself (you may already find yourself working late at night and having big sleep inertia in the morning) and I wouldn't complicate things any further.

There was a kid exactly your age who in 1964 decided to establish the world record for sleep deprivation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Gardner_(record_holder) He went on for 11 days and he was supported by a physician all the time. This was back in the days when we still didn't know sleep deprivation was lethal in rats.

Older people seem to need less sleep.

Then again, perhaps old age just means you can't get more then x hours of continuous sleep.

The current theory on apnea is that the throat collapses due to lower pressures on inhale. Being fat makes that situation worse. However, I believe some percentage of people with apnea are blocking on exhale due to anatomical structure or some such. CPAP would not work in this case (CPAP raises the internal throat pressure during breathing to avoid collapse). I think the number of people blocking on exhale could be quite high -- given the high CPAP treatment failures and the number of non-overweight apnea suffers. But the doctors and researchers deny that blocking on exhale is even possible.

It is also true that in quite a number of cases there are better solutions that using CPAP: most OSAs (obstructive sleep apnea) are due to obesity and losing weight would be a much better way to deal with it. Alas, lots of people find it easier to stick with a mask for the rest of their life rather than changing their daily routine (ironically my father is one of those, I am afraid).

I am questioning the differential pressure theory of apnea causing throat collapse. That is basic physics and the assumption behind CPAP. Your reply that even if people block on exhale "CPAP should be quite effective anyway" is non-sense on your own terms. Throat pressure is positive on exhale (even without CPAP) and blockage would be impossible since no forces could be generated to cause a collapse. You haven't heard about blockage on exhale because its impossible according to the current theory and so no one is looking for it.

I am not deny that CPAP works for some people but its really only around 30%. The medical statistics say its 100% effective "when used correctly" because they drop the people from the stats who are "non-compliant". Given that apnea is a horrible condition, do you think those that drop CPAP are not being helped? Ultimately, people give up in frustration and are accused of being too fat and too lazy to use the CPAP and diet. Blame the patient. Is it possible that cause and effect works the other way -- that its easy to get fat and difficult to lose wt when one is obstructing because of the lack of energy and will-power? Is it possible that CPAP only works with certain types of apnea and is ineffective otherwise? How does the current theory explain the large numbers of apnea patients who are not overweight?

I have apnea, I am not overweight and I block on exhale. I know because I've "caught" it occurring a number of times on waking. When I explained this to my doc he laughed in my face and said it was impossible. Another doc said I was just dreaming. I think they are both wrong and that the current theory of apnea is incomplete. Something not due to differential pressure blocks my throat, like a backflow valve, on exhale while I sleep. I can't imagine that I am the only one with this type and I think it might be fairly common.

Anyway, the reason for my post is not to harangue you but in the hope that a medical researcher or doctor will hear of this alternative view and reexamine apnea and its treatment with fresh eyes and an open mind.

Why don't you go to a sleep center, see a sleep doctor and have a polysomnography done? That way you'll make sure what the problem is. With a polysomnography they routinely measure the air influx in and out: if you have in but not out they'll see that, no need to "look for it".

Good luck!

In a sense he did take me and himself seriously. By the accepted theory on apnea, my symptoms were impossible. Hence the dismissal. In the docs mind its as if I were arguing for ET or Loch Ness, etc. I appreciate your compassion but you should be sorry that my docs did not have an open mind.

> but I'd wait before accusing of "arrogance, condescension and non-sense".

Well, your comment on block-on-exhale was non-sense by your own standards and a pretty standard reply which you did not defend. If you point this out to a doctor they do not explain, they get defensive or dismissive -- just like you. Is that arrogance or condescension?, I forget. You wouldn't happen to be a doctor would you? BTW, I noted that you did not address the issue of the stats and I can see that might sound like a conspiracy but is not. Its just the way that the medical industry rolls but you have to dig in to get the details and most docs don't have the time and take the JAMA articles at face value.

> You make it sound like a conspiracy.

I hardly think my supposition that the docs have missed something here amounts to a conspiracy. No tinfoil required, just read medical history. How about the highschool girl who self-diagnosed Crohn's disease in biology class just last week that all her doctors had missed. Or Drs. Semmelweis and Oliver Wendell Homes who advocated hand washing during childbirth to prevent puerperal fever and were treated with "disdain and hostility" by their own colleagues per historical accounts. (Imagine their attitude if the patients had suggested that the docs wash their hands!)

And let's not forget how patients with ulcers were told the cause is spicy foods and stress until Drs. Marshall and Warren proved that H. Pylori bacteria was the cause. Do you think that patients who followed orders were accussed of cheating on spicy foods and, despite reducing stress levels, still had no relief? How much do you want to bet that 30% of those who followed the Rx under the wrong theory found relief and 70% of those who followed the Rx got no relief and gave up. Those who gave up were then omitted from the stats as "non-compliant" and the Rx of bland food and reduced stress was 100% effective "when used correctly" as reported in JAMA and by crocowhile. I could go on but I think you get the point -- doctors miss things and wrong cause yields no or limited cure, no conspiracy required.

> Why don't you go to a sleep center, see a sleep doctor and have a polysomnography done?

Tried that but it is a long and windy road with many tollbooths along the way and no assurance of reaching the destination.

> That way you'll make sure what the problem is. With a polysomnography they routinely measure the air influx in and out: if you have in but not out they'll see that, no need to "look for it".

This is an incredibly naive statement that makes me think that a) you are an academic and b) you've never had a medical condition that requires the doc to actually think.

Anyway, one sleep doc said the standard Rx no matter how I block is diet, CPAP then surgery. He was not open to the discussion that CPAP makes no sense for block on exhale and could not even confirm that the sleep test would identify that. I contacted a sleep tech who administers these tests and he said they don't look for block type, they just count blocks per hour that disrupt sleep. So many per hour and you qualify for CPAP per the insurance industry. I guess when all you have is a CPAP everything looks like a nail, or something like that.

> Good luck!

Thanks!

Fortunately, I am able to control my apnea on my own using a variety of techniques. However, I have no guarantee that this will remain so as I get older. Plus a medical professional solution would almost certainly be better. As I stated in my prior reply, I am hopeful that a medical researcher or doctor with an open mind comes across this thread and question the current apnea theory so a solution can be found. On that optimistic note, perhaps you can forward this thread to one of your colleagues. Thanks.

As far as the memory part: the link you talk about (declarative NREM vs procedural REM) is very intriguing and many researchers are looking into sleep and memory in general. Yet, we are not at a stage where we can actually make so clear distinction: most work is still very very correlative.

http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/polyphasic-sleep-e...

http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/category/polyphasi...

Eventually, you reach this sort of zombie lucidity where you're awake and conscious, but you're not 100% there, in my opinion. I'm not sure if that affected my critical thinking skills, but certainly some part of me was always asleep on that schedule.

Hey, maybe this would have gone away if we'd been able to stick to it for longer. It was absolutely one of the funnest experiments I have tried and I want to do it again sometime.

I posted this because there was a lot of interesting discussion on the Matt Mullenweg post in regards to his sleeping patterns.

My lifestyle would make it hard for me to try polyphasic sleep, but I could see where it would help my productivity if I could pull it off.

Do you feel that it requires regular effort on your part to maintain that schedule?

Do you feel any differences mentally?

I could still code but I couldn't do theory - turned that part of my brain off like a switch.

And even though I only did it for 1 or 2 weeks it took more than month for me to get back to feeling normal.

It turns out a lot of systems in the body like that 24 hour thing. I'm glad I stopped before my digestive system got angry :)

Still kind of glad that I tried it because a) I know I won't try anything like it when stakes are higher and b) the amount of discipline it took was roughly equivalent to the amount of discipline it takes to time manage myself to peak productivity on a regular sleep cycle.