Perfect for a 3 day weekend:

click for larger graphic


giant graphic after the jump



Category: Digital Media, Weekend

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

5 Responses to “Sleep is Awesome!”

  1. RandyClayton says:

    I simply do not share the enthusiasm for these so-called ‘info-graphics’ — see Tufte for why …

    Also, a +200% increase is not double the risk. Is problem solving %100 improved or %200 (sic) improved?

  2. panskeptic says:

    There’s something about this graphic that triggers my BS detector. They are selling something after all.

    The research I’ve seen shows that different people thrive on different sleep cycles. There’s no discussion of all getting all sleep at once vs. short nights with catnaps during the day, as Thomas Edison famously did, with no diminution of productivity or longevity.

    This one-size-fits-all doesn’t pass the smell test.

  3. anewc2 says:

    “Going to bed too late doubles [sic] the risk of breast cancer”

    Because correlation always implies causation.

  4. nofoulsontheplayground says:

    This graphic does not take into account efficient sleepers like BR. Generally speaking, people who sleep very deep tend to need less sleep. It’s a more efficient process for those who do this.

    My anecdotal take is that those who sleep fewer hours of overall sleep while spending most of that time in deep sleep may have a faster, more efficient REM cycle, allowing them to shave a few hours off the typical 7-8 hour night of sleep without loss of performance in the daytime.

  5. yuan says:

    There is some evidence linking dysregulation of melatonin levels to SOME TYPES of cancer but the citation of a broad 200% increase in “cancer” is misleading horse shit.. Moreover, these type of statistics only have merit for the general population when confirmed by large-scale epidemiology (preferably in multiple nationalities and ethnic groups). The tendency to extrapolate from small scale lab experiments to the general population is a grade school-level scientific error.

    Even worse there is no citation supporting a 100% increase in risk of heart disease. Diabetes is a metabolic syndrome and hypertension is not necessarily linked to heart disease.