<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Short Sleep Can Be More Efficient</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sleepwarrior.com/short-sleep-can-be-more-efficient/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sleepwarrior.com/short-sleep-can-be-more-efficient</link>
	<description>Improve sleep. Overcome tiredness. Enrich creativity. Be happy.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: SleepWarrior</title>
		<link>http://www.sleepwarrior.com/short-sleep-can-be-more-efficient#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>SleepWarrior</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sleepwarrior.com/?p=14#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Most research I could find on naturally short sleep has been from the late 60s and 70s, and only from a few researchers.

Most current research studies the effects of chronic sleep deprivation--what happens when you take an 8-hour sleeper and make her sleep for 4-h a night for a week?

I suspect that the various red tape surrounding science research has something to do with it:

1. It's easier to get funding for research showing how shortened sleep is bad.

2. Scientists, for publication reasons, tend towards drastic and highly significant results. Studying the nuances of 7-h vs 8-h vs 9-h aren't very interesting from a publication standpoint (but certainly are from a personal lifestyle standpoint).

3. Long term research is what's needed for studying naturally short sleep. Long term studies are more difficult, time-consuming (duh), and more costly.

I certainly have not exhausted the sleep literature, so if anyone finds more recent studies on naturally short vs. naturally long sleep, contact me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most research I could find on naturally short sleep has been from the late 60s and 70s, and only from a few researchers.</p>
<p>Most current research studies the effects of chronic sleep deprivation&#8211;what happens when you take an 8-hour sleeper and make her sleep for 4-h a night for a week?</p>
<p>I suspect that the various red tape surrounding science research has something to do with it:</p>
<p>1. It&#8217;s easier to get funding for research showing how shortened sleep is bad.</p>
<p>2. Scientists, for publication reasons, tend towards drastic and highly significant results. Studying the nuances of 7-h vs 8-h vs 9-h aren&#8217;t very interesting from a publication standpoint (but certainly are from a personal lifestyle standpoint).</p>
<p>3. Long term research is what&#8217;s needed for studying naturally short sleep. Long term studies are more difficult, time-consuming (duh), and more costly.</p>
<p>I certainly have not exhausted the sleep literature, so if anyone finds more recent studies on naturally short vs. naturally long sleep, contact me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Breian Malupa - Breian.com</title>
		<link>http://www.sleepwarrior.com/short-sleep-can-be-more-efficient#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Breian Malupa - Breian.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sleepwarrior.com/?p=14#comment-18</guid>
		<description>"One 1970 study compared groups of short sleepers to normal and long sleepers"

Are there any other current latest studies/research?
Does this findings still holds true? Maybe with an extra 38 years of more data, new findings may have surfaced.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;One 1970 study compared groups of short sleepers to normal and long sleepers&#8221;</p>
<p>Are there any other current latest studies/research?<br />
Does this findings still holds true? Maybe with an extra 38 years of more data, new findings may have surfaced.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
