Second Sleep
in [Sleep Disorder]
|
From: tension_on_the_wire on 10 Jul 2008 04:13 On Jul 5, 12:28 am, "James Stewart" <lao...(a)msn.com> wrote: > Having made reference to this in another post i offer a couple of > references. The point is that it is claimed that a schedule of > iterrrupted sleep with a wakeful hour in the middle is a perfectly normal > and ancient pattern. In this sort of sleep the second period was commonly > known as second sleep and everyone knew about this until recently when the > modern notion of a sinble uninterrupted sleep time became popular. So if > you awaken in the middle of the night, don't worry about it. Potter > around the house smooch with the missus, or whatever, just don't go around > turning on all the bright lights and making a lot of noise. This is, I > assume, a bad time to practice your bagpipes. > > http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/02/thats-not-insomnia-thats-natural... > > http://fardj.prblogs.org/2006/02/21/first-sleep-second-sleep-third-sl... > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mail/ > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** I had a look at your references, but I could find no mention of the fact that this natural sleep pattern usually also depends upon one or more catnaps in the day, which I have read elsewhere. Did I miss that? There is a minimum number of hours required in order to avoid the accumulation of sleep debt...the actual number varies from person to person, but it is non-negotiable. If there is an hour or two in the night of awakening, it will need to be made up, either with earlier bedtime, later morning awakening, or catnaps in the day. If it is not, there tends to be a crash sleep-in after a week or two that can undo all the good work. That is the major drawback of this system since it is not totally compatible with the typical modern working lifestyle, and hence not for everyone. If one stays at home, or has extremely flexible work hours, then it is a great solution, however. It becomes easier to institute as we age, also, because that minimum number of required hours for sleep does tend to decrease dramatically as we age beyond midlife, and that mid-night awakening can be taken on without changing one's other hours. But it is not so easy for the young to get away with it. --tension
From: Pope Pie (Sy Lehrman) on 10 Jul 2008 12:00 tension_on_the_wire wrote: > On Jul 5, 12:28 am, "James Stewart" <lao...(a)msn.com> wrote: >> Having made reference to this in another post i offer a couple of >> references. The point is that it is claimed that a schedule of >> iterrrupted sleep with a wakeful hour in the middle is a perfectly normal >> and ancient pattern. In this sort of sleep the second period was commonly >> known as second sleep and everyone knew about this until recently when the >> modern notion of a sinble uninterrupted sleep time became popular. So if >> you awaken in the middle of the night, don't worry about it. Potter >> around the house smooch with the missus, or whatever, just don't go around >> turning on all the bright lights and making a lot of noise. This is, I >> assume, a bad time to practice your bagpipes. >> >> http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/02/thats-not-insomnia-thats-natural... >> >> http://fardj.prblogs.org/2006/02/21/first-sleep-second-sleep-third-sl... >> >> -- >> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** > > I had a look at your references, but I could find no mention of the > fact that this natural sleep pattern usually also depends upon one or > more catnaps in the day, which I have read elsewhere. Did I miss > that? > > There is a minimum number of hours required in order to avoid the > accumulation of sleep debt...the actual number varies from person to > person, but it is non-negotiable. If there is an hour or two in the > night of awakening, it will need to be made up, either with earlier > bedtime, later morning awakening, or catnaps in the day. If it is > not, there tends to be a crash sleep-in after a week or two that can > undo all the good work. That is the major drawback of this system > since it is not totally compatible with the typical modern working > lifestyle, and hence not for everyone. If one stays at home, or has > extremely flexible work hours, then it is a great solution, however. > It becomes easier to institute as we age, also, because that minimum > number of required hours for sleep does tend to decrease dramatically > as we age beyond midlife, and that mid-night awakening can be taken on > without changing one's other hours. But it is not so easy for the > young to get away with it. > No, I don't think they go into that. I don't think anything is proven in the material I have seen, but the point is that the concept seems to have been quite commonly understood at one time and it is just that sort of thing that is taken for granted that everyone knows about that makes this sort of research useful. Modern notions of normality in Europe and America stem in large part from the industrial revolution in which human behavior was supposed to conform to the demands of industry so that people were expected to work for twelve or sixteen hours and sleep enough to work some more. Demands for time off were considered to be signs of laziness and such attitudes have been passed on to us without much critical analysis. This stuff suggests that the idea that one needs to sleep in a single uninterrupted eight hour stretch may not be entirely realistic. I recall that at one time I drove a truck over the road and slept in four hour blocks. After some adjustment I discovered that I quite liked that schedule and always felt rested to the extent that I sometimes just skipped one of those blocks, being already awake and alert. I've been contemplating going back to some similar arrangement since arthritis makes me incredibly stiff after the ten hours in bed I seem to need to get over the joint pain of the day before.
|
Pages: 1 Prev: All Natural Sleeping Aids Next: Newbie Observations 3 days on |