[HN Gopher] "Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factua...
___________________________________________________________________
"Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors
Author : giansegato
Score : 125 points
Date : 2021-04-03 20:39 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (guzey.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (guzey.com)
| georgewsinger wrote:
| Tangential: Guzey's "Best of Twitter" (https://guzey.com/best-of-
| twitter/) is the best Twitter curation list, bar none.
|
| He explores a lot of of interesting contrarian ideas and runs a
| lot of interesting self-experiments in productivity.
| raphlinus wrote:
| They say "don't read the comments," but taking that advice would
| have led me to miss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUw3s4evhTE .
| That is a 7 minute video of science comedy that had me laughing
| out loud at several points, and its punchline is directly
| relevant to the question at hand here.
| onethought wrote:
| This feels cherry picked and dishonest.
|
| - Why we sleep literally calls out the example of treating
| depression with sleep deprivation.
|
| - The cancer reference was made with the context of "consistently
| less than 5 hours of sleep", he then referenced many studies that
| assessed 4 hour sleeps. This essay misrepresents the context of
| that chapter.
|
| - As counter evidence throughout he references research done
| AFTER the book was written...
| nonbirithm wrote:
| The problem is that there are both some inaccuracies with the
| takedown, the book is still factually inaccurate in dangerous
| ways even though it _is_ accurate in others, and ultimately
| neither source gives a satisfactory conclusion to the question
| of how you should approach sleep issues.
|
| There is something about the _Why We Sleep_ controversy that is
| uniquely frustrating to me, having dealt with sleep problems
| for years. If I hadn 't read HN then I probably would have read
| that book for far longer than I did. What about the people that
| might not read HN and _still_ aren 't aware of the tangible
| harms it can cause? It currently has a 4.4 out of 5 on
| Goodreads and pages of written five-star reviews, proving the
| utter uselessness of such a metric for topics like health.
|
| It seems the solution is research from a variety of different
| sources. That worked pretty well for actually sorting out my
| sleep issues, because I was more careful. But the thing is,
| time is finite. In the programming realm we can't always do the
| same militant validation for the thousands of microdependencies
| a single npm project pulls in. The amount of available
| information is exploding, and much of it is becoming obsoleted
| constantly. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. And when we
| decide to trust the creator as being an "expert" as a
| compromise, we will inevitably encounter sources like these.
| pedalpete wrote:
| I personally believe sleep research is at the same stage as the
| food pyramid was in the 80s.
|
| As someone who is also currently doing sleep trials for our
| start-up (https://soundmind.co), I can understand why. Clinical
| sleep trials are time consuming and expensive. Try getting a
| volunteer to sleep in a lab for more than a few nights, then try
| to get thousands of people doing that, like you would in a drug
| trial, also try to factor in all the things that person would
| have done that day which would affect their sleep, as well as
| factoring in what their sleep was like the previous 3 or more
| nights, and how that would affect on going sleep.
|
| When I read Why We Sleep, I remember thinking that the
| conclusions Dr Walker was arriving at seemed wrong much of the
| time, and seemed sensationalist. At the same time, I've seen him
| interviewed where he walks back things like the link between
| circadian rhythm and blue-light.
|
| I'm not sure if the expectation is that he writes a rebuttal to
| his own work, or a living document about how the science has
| changed?
|
| I think we need to look at the emerging field and understand that
| sleep is still something we don't understand well, and that much
| of the research is still a moving target.
| nikanj wrote:
| There seems to be a very strong correlation between popularity
| and scientific inaccuracy. For example, Sex at Dawn was a massive
| hit, and completely based on wistful thinking and speculation,
| like "We found multiple different kinds of arrowheads in one
| cave. It must mean the lady living in the cave had multiple
| lovers, in a happy and peaceful polyamorous utopia"
| CJefferson wrote:
| I wonder if there is a strong correlation between popularity
| and scientific analysis.
|
| I sometimes see papers getting ripped to shreds by twitter for
| days, and while the papers are indeed bad, I've seen dozens of
| papers which are just as bad, just not as interesting to
| Twitter.
| RachelF wrote:
| The errors that Matthew Walker make in "Why We Sleep" go beyond
| simple errors or conformation bias.
|
| The look like scientific fraud - inventing data.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| My biggest complaint about the book: it's simply terrifying.
|
| If you suffer from insomnia, don't pick up this book. It will
| have the opposite of the desired effect. It doesn't have a lot of
| practical guidance. And now, according to this article, much of
| the terror might be unfounded.
|
| Better books I'd recommend if you have insomnia are "The Sleep
| Solution" and "The Circadian Code"
| ddek wrote:
| Absolutely. I found similar advice to that in this book
| propelled my insomnia about 4 years ago.
|
| My insomnia responded to CBT-I extremely fast. After 18 months,
| 2 nights of sleep deprivation (4 hours in bed) and the corner
| was turned. Now, if I feel my sleep is falling away, my
| solution is to cut sleep. It rebuilds habits too - what do I do
| at 6am except run?
| msrenee wrote:
| I need to figure something out for this. I have narcolepsy
| and depression and I've fallen into this cycle where I'm
| tired, so I sleep, then I wake up still tired because I don't
| get restful sleep, so I go back to sleep. When I'm not at
| work, I'm unmotivated and bored and I'd rather be asleep, so
| I go to sleep. Then I wake up tired and so on and so forth.
| Essentially if I'm not at work and don't absolutely have to
| do something, I'm asleep.
|
| While I'm at work, I'm daydreaming about sleeping. When a
| friend manages to get me out of the house, I'm thinking how
| much I'd rather be asleep. I've got meds for the narcolepsy
| and meds for the depression, and they make it less bad, but
| I'm still miserable most of the time. The narcolepsy meds
| make me able to function and the depression meds keep me from
| killing myself, but being awake and alive isn't the same as
| content and fulfilled.
|
| It doesn't help that I work a late shift and have been
| averaging 60 hours a week for the last 6 months.
|
| Sleep deprivation therapy is news to me and you seem like you
| might have some knowledge about the subject. So do you have
| any recommendations as far as therapies and strategies I
| could look into for this anti-insomnia?
| nicoburns wrote:
| Have you tried bright, blue light? I don't have narcolepsy,
| but I've found it works wonders at keeping me awake/alert.
| dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote:
| Couple things:
|
| 1) It sounds like you really just need a break. Can you
| take one? Can you ask a friend for help? 60 hrs+ on a whack
| sleep schedule is tough. Do you have blackout curtains, eye
| mask, or earplugs to protect your sleep?
|
| 2) How is your diet? Under stress if you are eating a crap
| diet (refined carbs, heavy sugars, caffeine, etc) that will
| impact your body far more and can even cause cyclical
| swings of anxiety that impact your ability to rest. See:
|
| https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/prescriptions-
| life/2...
|
| 3) Come up with an image of relaxation in the highest
| detail. It needs to be a scene where you feel safe, secure,
| and feeling the warmth of compassion from someone you
| trust. Maybe you're on the beach, in the forest, whatever,
| it needs to be as high detail as you can and engage all the
| senses. Colors, shapes, smells, textures, temperature,
| touch. Write it down, draw it out, own it, envision it
| using every single sense and emotion you can. Practice
| entering this scene for 20 minutes a day (set a timer) and
| feel every aspect of it. Take notice of the various details
| as you are in your scene. Don't expect anything from it,
| but just work on spending time meditating on and building
| it for 30 days. Practice this every day regardless of if
| you feel like it "works" for sleep. After about 3-6 months
| you'll have a tool you can use to relax pretty quickly, the
| feelings should follow about 15-30 minutes after spending
| time in your scene.
|
| 4) Insomnia blows ass, I've been there, but the long-term
| recovery is taking breaks as you need them, writing down a
| few key elements to your relaxation + nighttime rituals and
| sticking to it, exactly. Even if it feels like things
| "aren't working"... Also, get out of bed if you toss and
| turn. If you're not sleeping anyway, there's no point.
| Associating wherever you sleep with anxiety needs to end.
|
| There will be ups and downs but you will recover. But
| absolutely please schedule in breaks to look forward to.
| onethought wrote:
| But "Why We Sleep" - recommends CBT-I as "the one of the most
| effective treatments for insomnia " ... so why is it bad for
| people who suffer from insomnia? Your experience seems to
| echo the point the book makes.
| fedorareis wrote:
| Something doesn't quite sit right with me about him linking to a
| couple things that mention Walker's rebuttal
| https://sleepdiplomat.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/why-we-sleep-...
| but not linking to it directly. If you are trying to get people
| to think critically about the book it seems like they should at
| least be given the opportunity to see the authors response to
| your criticism.
| nabla9 wrote:
| In his response Walker walks back some of the most outrageous
| claims he makes, like the cancer claim.
|
| Had he put the same effort to sourcing the book and toning down
| the claims, there would have not been a controversy.
| mikedilger wrote:
| Interesting. I briefly checked into one of his retorts and it
| appears just as poorly sourced. Take this one:
| The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has stated that,
| "Insufficient sleep is a public health epidemic."
|
| If you follow the link (which doesn't even go to the CDC
| site!), it's dead. If you go get the 473 page report from the
| CDC for 2014 (implied by the dead link) from
| https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf, you find the word
| sleep used only 3 times (once in the index) and no such quote.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| personal heuristic of mine, never read something that even
| remotely reeks of self-help.
|
| when it starts with "popular science person xyz charts a map of
| the most important scientific breakthrough of the decade" etc
| just put it back and pick something from the fiction section and
| you'll have a better time.
|
| Life isn't lived in the aggregate, you don't need "sleep science"
| to figure out how much _you_ need to sleep. Are you tired? Sleep
| more, no? you 're fine. This emerging health industrial complex
| has just one purpose: create neurotic people who try to optimise
| their life and then sell them answers.
| currymj wrote:
| the book was appealing because it was something to point to
| that might convince your boss or friends to let you sleep,
| rather than acting like wanting to sleep more than 6 hours a
| night is a sign of weak moral character.
|
| many people hold this attitude, it's appealing to have
| something "objective" when trying to justify going to sleep.
|
| unfortunately it does have these many scientific inaccuracies.
| depressing.
| dojitza1 wrote:
| I'd argue that the "emerging health industrial complex" you
| mention has been with humans since the dawn of civilization.
| One wonders how we were able to envision tools that help us
| move away from our opportunistic instincts.
| karlicoss wrote:
| This heuristic sadly doesn't always work, it's like saying you
| don't need "food science" and should just go for that sugary
| drink if you want it, or not exercising because you're not
| feeling like it
| Barrin92 wrote:
| That's not what I was saying. I didn't say you don't need to
| exercise or eat healthy, I said you don't need a nutrionist
| or a wellness coach. Do you know how I know I need to
| exercise or cut down on sugar? When my belt starts to get
| tight, when my posture gets bad, when I lose muscle and when
| I wheeze running up the stairs. Then I know I need to switch
| the beer for water and take the bike instead of the train to
| work, problem solved.
|
| Never in my life have I ever wasted a minute installing
| exercise apps on my phone, reading exercise books, instead
| I've just gone to public pool and done my laps and for some
| reason I'm in better shape than some of my peers who seem to
| spend hundreds of dollars per month on books, peloton courses
| and exercise audiobooks.
| karlicoss wrote:
| Sure, this sound reasonable. But you needed scientists to
| figure out at some point that it's optimal for most people
| to eat some things, and not other. E.g. you can stay lean
| eating only fruit, but you'll lack some micronutrients.
|
| Also there are some long term longevity effects (or at
| least people doing studies and claiming such effects).
|
| And even with 'noticing' you feel tired, it doesn't always
| work, at least not for everyone. Obviously most people
| would feel suboptimal if they start sleeping 4h/day, for
| example. But anecdotally, I dont notice any subjective
| difference as long as I slept something like 6.5h+.
| Sometimes I feel a little sleepy but then it goes away
| quickly.. sometimes I feel like crap till afternoon even
| though I slept a lot. And making long term observations is
| hard because it's hard to compare how tired you're feeling
| now with how tired you were a week ago.
| msrenee wrote:
| I don't read a lot of self-help books, but the ones I have have
| been extremely helpful. Some people don't respond to them and
| 95% of what's on the market are bullshit platitudes, but it
| feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to write
| them off entirely.
| serjester wrote:
| Calling his book a self help title is a stretch - the author is
| one of the top researchers in his field. He simply wrote a book
| making the research out there a lot more accessible to the
| layman. He isn't selling you anything past that.
|
| As for the field of "sleep science", you're drastically
| oversimplifying it. Your sleeping habits have tons of second
| order affects that aren't remotely intuitive. For example, you
| know alcohol wrecks your sleep quality? Over time that lack of
| quality sleep is associated to weight gain. Doesn't it make
| sense to have a solid understanding of something you spend a
| third of your life doing?
|
| Finally the author of the blog post has no background in this
| past reading articles on PubMed. I've read some genuine
| criticisms of the book, most of which Walker addressed, but
| these are incredibly weak. If you're attempting to synthesize
| entire fields of research, you should probably have a
| background in them.
| nabla9 wrote:
| > He isn't selling you anything past that.
|
| He is selling speaking gigs, advises startups. He is cashing
| out and part of that is sensationalist book for general
| audience.
|
| > but these are incredibly weak.
|
| It's riddled with factual errors.
| lethologica wrote:
| Self help books sell because they give they buyer a sense of
| having accomplished "something". It's similar to the person who
| wants to start running to get healthier. They go out, buy a
| nice pair of running shoes, grab some expensive name brand
| clothing and perhaps buy themselves a fitness tracker too and
| then call it a day feeling great. They have convinced
| themselves they have begun their journey to a life where they
| run marathons weekly but have in actual fact achieved nothing.
| tayo42 wrote:
| So how do i, a regular person without a neuroscience or sleep
| background, know who to trust? The about page on this page
| doesn't lead me to believe that this is another expert in the
| field. Maybe Guzey got it wrong, maybe they're both wrong? Why
| should I take this page at face value?
|
| I guess this leads to a bigger philosophical leaning question,
| how do I pick out good information when I don't know the field.
| This has been a struggle for me, I have a recent interest in
| neuroscience and how it relates to consciousness. This topic
| seems to have a wide variety of science based, philosophy based
| and some real out there stuff but it gets pitches as reliable. I
| really don't know how to pick good books to read. I don't know
| how to filter out the equivalent of like being antivax in a field
| i dont know about.
|
| To try to answer my own questions, I guess in some way, you can't
| ever know the truth? But relying on one book, blog, article, view
| point to base your understanding will definitely lead to being
| uniformed unless you are lucky enough to stumble on a god source
| the first time.
| wpietri wrote:
| One way to do it is looking at what other experts say. I'm a
| long-time reader of statistician Andrew Gelman, who has a lot
| of good critiques of shoddy science. He responds to Guzey's
| critique here:
| https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/11/24/why-we-sle...
| kachnuv_ocasek wrote:
| I second the recommendation of Gelman's blog. He's written a
| lot more about this particular case since then. Here's a more
| recent article on the topic, for instance:
| https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/07/alexey-
| guz...
| inimino wrote:
| Read the history of the field.
|
| Read textbooks, oldest ones first.
|
| Don't try to understand a field by looking at the new research.
|
| Ignore anything you see in the popular press, newspapers, TED
| talks, or the internet generally.
|
| Read opinions by experts in adjacent fields whose expertise you
| can more readily evaluate.
|
| Good luck :-)
| polote wrote:
| > how do I pick out good information when I don't know the
| field
|
| Search HN threads on the topic, read people who agree and
| people who disagree then make your own opinion
| anonporridge wrote:
| You don't know. And you never will.
|
| Even well credentialed experts aren't strictly trustworthy,
| because they can often be wrong or have big gaps in knowledge.
| Credentials can be faked or bullshitted into. Even honest
| experts can fall into self corrupting games that force them to
| spread bad information to maintain their position in their
| field.
|
| As individuals, we're going to constantly mess up and follow
| the wrong ideas. The best we can do is hold lightly to them and
| be willing to be proven wrong and always be weighing the risks
| of an idea being wrong. Always ask what the incentives of a
| person sharing an idea are. Profit incentives distort rational
| thinking. We all worship the thing that feeds us.
|
| It's important in some cases to take leaps of faith so that you
| don't become paralyzed to inaction from the vast uncertainty of
| the world. Just be wary that you don't get stuck on a sinking
| island or take overly absurd leaps that don't have the reward
| to justify the risk.
|
| Hopefully, the human colossus is marching closer to truth, even
| if we as individuals can never achieve it.
| MattRix wrote:
| It's true that it's hard to know for sure, but there are a
| bunch of things you can do. One of the most obvious is to see
| what other reputable sources say about the author. What's their
| track record in the past? Then for any specific piece, you can
| look at the arguments they're making, and then look at the
| sources they reference. Are those sources reputable, etc.
|
| To put it another way, you need to have a bunch of sources you
| trust, and then see how strong the connections are from any new
| data back to those original trustworthy sources.
| dojitza1 wrote:
| You shouldn't trust anybody other than yourself and your
| ability to recognise scientific consensus. This process is not
| easy and as goes for most things in life, diversification is
| key. Basing your research on a single article/book/source is
| bad, and your confidence that you understand/are knowledgeable
| about a topic should rise as you do more research.
| neolog wrote:
| You can also trust individual people and institutions if you
| follow them for a while and know how they do things.
| thomasahle wrote:
| > You shouldn't trust anybody other than yourself
|
| And probably not even that either.
| kergonath wrote:
| Yourself is the last person you should trust. It's much
| easier to detect logical flaws in other people and be
| critical about what they say.
| habitue wrote:
| > You shouldn't trust anybody other than yourself
|
| Oh, definitely don't trust yourself. Everybody is wrong about
| almost everything, that includes yourself
| binbag wrote:
| Great article. The percentage reduction bit is particularly
| bonkers.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| The thing to remember is that popsci books are not peer-reviewed
| academic literature. They are the, generally unchecked, thoughts
| of the author. If you listen to them, you do so at your peril as
| you are effectively performing alterations to your life based
| purely on the thoughts of one person. Much like with medicine,
| you should seek multiple qualified opinions.
| dang wrote:
| Past threads:
|
| _"Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22419958 - Feb 2020 (34
| comments)
|
| _"Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850 - Nov 2019 (58
| comments)
| allears wrote:
| I wonder who keeps submitting this thread. Could it possibly be
| the same person who wrote the critique?
| drannex wrote:
| You can check the poster accounts, all very different. Likely
| just something people keep coming across.
| wpietri wrote:
| I still hear the book being referenced positively by people
| who don't know the topic well, so that seems plausible to
| me.
| [deleted]
| RocketSyntax wrote:
| sure, some of it is wishy-washy, but i've made adjustments based
| on it (no caffeine after 11:30am), and my health has dramatically
| improved.
|
| now i'm dreaming every night AND waking up with programming
| solutions because of it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-03 23:00 UTC)