This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Polyphasic sleep.
|
Archives: |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: WikiGray89.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Another page on Wikipedia, Segmented sleep covers what seems to me the exact same topic as the subject of this page. Therefore, I propose that they be merged. Please leave a brief comment below, and potentially, a vote as to whether or not you think the merge needs to be done. makeswell ( talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
The everyman pie chart does not match the definition given in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.28.56 ( talk) 13:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia's rules [see " Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)"] frown upon the idea of adding health information to Wikipedia unless you cite a peer-reviewed medical source. Now that I've removed all the unreliable medical claims from our "Polyphasic sleep" article, I think we can safely merge it with "Segmented sleep". It doesn't matter so much which of the two articles is merged into the other; the main point is that they should be merged. (We can discuss directional details in the section below this one.) Do you support or oppose a merge? If you oppose it, why? Cheers, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rules [see " Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)"] frown upon the idea of adding health information to Wikipedia unless you cite a peer-reviewed medical source. Now that I've removed all the unreliable medical claims from our "Polyphasic sleep" article, I think we can safely merge it with "Segmented sleep". But I'm not sure which of the two article should be merged into the other. Your thoughts, please? — Unforgettableid ( talk) 23:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, then, let me rather suggest rescuing the present Segmented sleep, which begins with "Segmented sleep, also known as divided sleep, bimodal sleep pattern, bifurcated sleep, or interrupted sleep" by renaming it Divided sleep. (I think both bifurcated and bimodal could as easily refer to a main sleep episode plus a siesta, not what 'Segmented sleep' is about. Interrupted might sound negative rather than neutral.) The term 'polyphasic sleep', though not definitely wrong, is at present seen as anything but the historically natural pattern that 'divided sleep' is claiming to be. What say you? -- Hordaland ( talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What about Sleep Patterns? It accurately encompasses what Polyphasic Sleep as been known to be (more than two phases of sleep, or more than one if going by a more literal meaning). It also encompasses Segmented/biphasic sleep. It would require a redirect, but the phrase is accurate for what we are discussing. An alternative would be Sleep Cycles but I believe that is too similar to Sleep Cycle which currently redirects to Circadian Rhythm (and is more fitting). It would also require a section discussing the "typical" one block of 8 hours sleep pattern. But I also believe it generalizes the scope of the article to better fit the merge. Jarwain ( talk) 20:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the word "polyphasic" is more complex. But I still think it's best, and still for the same two reasons as before:
Considering my "SEO" and "let's debunk myths" arguments, do you support or oppose the use of the name "Polyphasic sleep"?
Cheers, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
I don't think that the opinion of a single researcher is enough to justify the statement "researchers ... warn that", especially with "researchers" in plural. Do you? Nik.mess ( talk) 20:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It isn't known whether or not the NREM 2 stage of sleep is necessary for two reasons.
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)YelloJello33
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Polyphasic sleep.
|
Archives: |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: WikiGray89.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Another page on Wikipedia, Segmented sleep covers what seems to me the exact same topic as the subject of this page. Therefore, I propose that they be merged. Please leave a brief comment below, and potentially, a vote as to whether or not you think the merge needs to be done. makeswell ( talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
The everyman pie chart does not match the definition given in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.28.56 ( talk) 13:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia's rules [see " Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)"] frown upon the idea of adding health information to Wikipedia unless you cite a peer-reviewed medical source. Now that I've removed all the unreliable medical claims from our "Polyphasic sleep" article, I think we can safely merge it with "Segmented sleep". It doesn't matter so much which of the two articles is merged into the other; the main point is that they should be merged. (We can discuss directional details in the section below this one.) Do you support or oppose a merge? If you oppose it, why? Cheers, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rules [see " Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)"] frown upon the idea of adding health information to Wikipedia unless you cite a peer-reviewed medical source. Now that I've removed all the unreliable medical claims from our "Polyphasic sleep" article, I think we can safely merge it with "Segmented sleep". But I'm not sure which of the two article should be merged into the other. Your thoughts, please? — Unforgettableid ( talk) 23:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, then, let me rather suggest rescuing the present Segmented sleep, which begins with "Segmented sleep, also known as divided sleep, bimodal sleep pattern, bifurcated sleep, or interrupted sleep" by renaming it Divided sleep. (I think both bifurcated and bimodal could as easily refer to a main sleep episode plus a siesta, not what 'Segmented sleep' is about. Interrupted might sound negative rather than neutral.) The term 'polyphasic sleep', though not definitely wrong, is at present seen as anything but the historically natural pattern that 'divided sleep' is claiming to be. What say you? -- Hordaland ( talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What about Sleep Patterns? It accurately encompasses what Polyphasic Sleep as been known to be (more than two phases of sleep, or more than one if going by a more literal meaning). It also encompasses Segmented/biphasic sleep. It would require a redirect, but the phrase is accurate for what we are discussing. An alternative would be Sleep Cycles but I believe that is too similar to Sleep Cycle which currently redirects to Circadian Rhythm (and is more fitting). It would also require a section discussing the "typical" one block of 8 hours sleep pattern. But I also believe it generalizes the scope of the article to better fit the merge. Jarwain ( talk) 20:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the word "polyphasic" is more complex. But I still think it's best, and still for the same two reasons as before:
Considering my "SEO" and "let's debunk myths" arguments, do you support or oppose the use of the name "Polyphasic sleep"?
Cheers, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
I don't think that the opinion of a single researcher is enough to justify the statement "researchers ... warn that", especially with "researchers" in plural. Do you? Nik.mess ( talk) 20:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It isn't known whether or not the NREM 2 stage of sleep is necessary for two reasons.
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)YelloJello33
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)
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)
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)