Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar and Survival by T.S. Wiley : Paleolithic & Neanderthin : Active Low-Carber Forums

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

JenofWi

Tue, Jul-06-04, 17:29

TwilightZ

Tue, Jul-06-04, 18:53

I saw this book in a post by TwilightZ. I'm only on page 100 but I just love this book. Not only do they say very interesting things that make a great deal of sense BUT they also have a great sense of humor.
I am loving this book. Thanks for mentioning it!

Jen, almost no one talks about this book, so imagine my surprise at seeing this as the topic of a thread. I am delighted that you are enjoying it and maybe your mentioning it will whet the curiosity of others. I also hope your tabula rasa is rapidly filling up with wisdom and truth.

Keep in touch and let me know what you think when you finish it.

Howard

Signey

Tue, Jul-06-04, 19:27

I appreciate the heads-up about this book. :)
I just ordered it at Amazon.
Thanks!
Signey

MichaelG

Wed, Jul-07-04, 01:35

Interesting about sugar. It was very rare before the sixteenth century, but wherever colonists went to settle in the tropics, be it Brazil, Phillipines, Carribean, Northern Australia, about the first thing they got going was a sugar cane industry, nearly always hand-in-hand with slavery. All to satisfy a wierd craving for sugar! Last year I went on a guided tour of a sugar mill in North Queensland at Bowen, and the technology that goes into producing the white-and-deadly is mind - boggling.

We actually had slavery here in Australia; ships would go to Pacific Islands and virtually kidnap whole villages and bring them back to Australia, enticing them with very low wages. The trade was called "blackbirding" and their descendents, the "Kanakas" are still here as a distinct community, somewhat like the Cajun people of America.

All to get a plentiful source of sugar... strange world, hey!

Michael Gardner
Australia

PlaneCrazy

Wed, Jul-07-04, 08:49

In parts of Michigan, sugar beet factorys are common. I rarely smelt anything quite as nasty as a sugar factory. I'm not sure what they do to refine it, but it sure pumps out horrible smells. Not as bad as a rendering plant, I'm sure, but pretty bad for something so sweet.

Plane Crazy

TheCaveman

Wed, Jul-07-04, 09:04

Woohoo! Favorite book of all time!

PaleoDeano

Fri, Jul-09-04, 15:24

Just ordered this book. It was hard to find. Grabbed the last copy they had at books4less for under $10.00 for the hardcopy. Can't wait till it arrives. This book sounds very interesting!

penelope

Fri, Jul-09-04, 15:29

I loved this book.
Thanks for mentioning it and reminding me .
Pene

JenofWi

Tue, Jul-27-04, 08:06

Well, I finished the book. It was a very interesting read. I got rid of our LED light clock and plan on putting up some dark shades after we move - hopefully soon. I'm not sure what to do this winter. I have not only a husband who works all day and would like to stay awake after getting home - but two kids ages 5 and 7 who might complain about going to bed in the early evening. And I do work one night a week.
I'll do the best we can - like the book said - In the winter, sleep as long as you can without getting fired or divorced.
I really enjoyed the writer's humor!
Thanks for mentioning it.

2bthn1smor

Sat, Jul-31-04, 08:15

I just bought this book on your recommendations, and boy, is it an eye opener! I'[ve only started reading it and it's already got me thinking that the modern human has 'progressed' too far from his origin, and that maybe we need to regress and go back to our caveman ways. A fascinating book!

cbcb

Sat, Jul-31-04, 11:27

I just bought this book on your recommendations, and boy, is it an eye opener!

I think that's the polar opposite of the intended effect! :D

2bthn1smor

Sat, Jul-31-04, 13:14

Well, what I meant to say was that the book really shed some light on the subject, and that it showed flashes of brilliance. In fact, it kept me up all night reading....;-D

daylily

Thu, Aug-19-04, 11:08

Hello, cave people!

I know this is not the right place to introduce myself, but I was so excited to see a thread to discuss one of my favorite books of all time that I jumped right in and registered and here I am!

While I agree with the authors' main ideas, I have a few nitpicky things about the book that bothered me. For example, here in the temperate zone (I'm in the American midwest), the longest days are centered around the equinox in late June, but most of the fruit is ripe in late summer when the days are starting to shorten. This doesn't negate the main thrust of the book, but I wonder what the rest of you think about this?

Have any of you thought about how these ideas apply to other parts of the world, such as the Arctic, or the tropics?

A disappointment in the book is the fact that the authors did not discuss how they implement the long sleep/darkness times of winter in their own lives. How did their marriages/family relationships/ jobs fare when they started to live this way? Did they start to live this way, or did it remain theory for them?

It is two winters since I read this book. I live with husband and three children, all of whom are night owls. We are homeschoolers and hubby has flextime, so we have had a very late-night/sleep-in kind of schedule for the whole family. It made big waves when I started to go to bed at 9pm!

I must say that they were all very good and supportive, and respected my reasons for doing it, even though they were not convinced to do it themselves. Still, as a mother it seemed wrong to go to bed before my children (2 years ago youngest was 7). As a wife, it seemed unfair to leave dh with all the bedtime routines. Without his support I couldn't have done it at all.

I would love to hear from those of you who are following this way of living. For those just reading the book for the first time, if you are in the Northern Hemisphere you have about a month before time to start turning in early. Are you going to try it? What potential problems/solutions have you already thought about?

That's enough for now! Thanks for letting me jump in on this discussion. It will be a pleasure to get to know you.

Daylily

Monique723

Thu, Aug-19-04, 11:48

I would like to get in a discussion on this book also. I am halfway through the book. I have several problems sleeping.

1. I sleep about 6.5 - 7 hours a night. I wake up for some odd reason about either one hour or 1/2 hour before the alarm is to go off at 5:20 am. This usually does not happen on the weekends. On the weekends, I usually sleep 9 hours.

2. I take melatonin to help me sleep, otherwise, I wake more during the night.
I know the book is against taking the supplement.

3. I try to go to bed early, but I have trouble going to bed by 9 pm. I'm in bed around 10 pm.

4. I am having trouble getting all the light out of my bedroom.
We have an alarm system with a lighted panel in our bedroom and I am not sure how to cover it completely. Also, I guess I need to buy drapes or curtains for my bedroom windows as a neighbor has a very bright night light shining across the street.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

daylily

Thu, Aug-19-04, 12:19

Hi, Monique,

I too have had trouble sleeping more than 7 hours a night. I have menopausal night sweats - that has a lot to do with it. Hard to change.

I never even heard of taking supplemental melatonin before reading this book. If you have a hard time sleeping, no wonder you want to keep taking it. It must seem like things would be really worse without it.

When I started going to bed at 9 pm, a lot of times I would just lie there, wide awake. Somehow, the act of going to bed and turning off the lights caused my brain to wake up. I would eventually fall asleep though, and before the previously usual time. (previously usual?)

It would be a handyman project, but I got a mental picture of a short curtain rod and a little curtain over your alarm system. What do you think?

I need to get new shades. The ones we have really let a lot of light through the edges.

A sort of corollary idea to Lights Out is that we also need lots of natural sunlight, and for those of us visually impaired to take off our glasses/contacts for at least a few minutes so we get the light in our eyes without lenses. Maybe spending more time outdoors is needed for us to really sleep well.

Spending more and more time outdoors has been one of my cave person goals, but I haven't got very far in achieving it. I'm a real softie, used to the creature comforts indoors. Intuitively, I feel that there is a strong connection between our need for real darkness at night and real sun and daylight during the day.

Hope this helps. We have to feel our way through this together.

By the way 2bthn, I'm rolling on the floor.

Daylily

PurpleBass

Thu, Aug-19-04, 16:44

It is an interesting point, what do you do if you live very far north (or south) and the length of the day varies widely? (I always sort of suspected human beings were never meant to live in Scotland!) This summer we've been away a lot, and when we're home, my husband now finds it impossible to sleep past about 5AM because there's too much daylight - and it does NOT improve his disposition any! :)

BTW I just have to say I love the cavepeople forum. Over on the Atkins board everyone always seems to want to talk about cheating, or why they're not losing weight fast enough, or the latest weird chemicals. I think I like the conversation here a lot better!

TwilightZ

Thu, Aug-19-04, 18:08

Welcome Daylily!

I have a lot of the same questions you do, and no answers. I intend to write to TS Wiley and ask her much of what you asked. BTW, regarding the authors, my suspicion is that Wiley is that actual author and champion of these ideas and that Bent Formby is a PhD who, no doubt, regards her information to be correct, but serves more as the official scientific figurehead to provide a stamp of legitimacy, if you know what I mean.

Now as to some of what you related:

When I started going to bed at 9 pm, a lot of times I would just lie there, wide awake. Somehow, the act of going to bed and turning off the lights caused my brain to wake up. I would eventually fall asleep though, and before the previously usual time. (previously usual?)

I also had difficulty going to bed this early. I would read in bed and end up turning out the light at 10. Even then I would often lay awake. But, I was still able to get up earlier and felt more refreshed.

A sort of corollary idea to Lights Out is that we also need lots of natural sunlight, and for those of us visually impaired to take off our glasses/contacts for at least a few minutes so we get the light in our eyes without lenses. Maybe spending more time outdoors is needed for us to really sleep well.

Agree with you 100% on this and I find that when I've spent time outdoors I sleep better at night. I, too, tend to spend too much time indoors. Like now.

As to how my family has adjusted, we really have it easy. It's just my wife and me and cat, and my wife gets up so early that she has to go to sleep at 9 or 9:30. We put up dark curtains and I made a little flip up/down cardboard flap that covers the digital clocks. I imagine it's hard with a family. [BTW I am a supporter of homeschooling].

There are some inconsistencies in the book, some things I don't agree with entirely, but her basic premise about the role light plays in health I believe is correct. Also her discussions about cortisol and exercise are fascinating.

Howard

daylily

Fri, Aug-20-04, 08:36

Hi, TwilightZ!

Thanks for the welcome - I'm glad to be here.

What you say about authorship of book makes sense to me. She's also written one about menopause (Sex, Lies, and Menopause) which is on my list to read. I am 52 and just started menopause with a bang this year. A friend who read it already told me Wiley believes we should not have menopause, that it is unnatural, animals don't cease to be capable of reproduction so we shouldn't either. Hmmm. I think the cavewomen were like us in this respect, and didn't take any hormones for it either.

I really agree with you that Lights Out has a lot of inconsistencies, but that the main point about light/darkness and health is valid. I liked the insights on exercise too.

It is kind of funny to think of us would-be cave people, knowing we need to spend lots of time outdoors, and sitting here typing to each other on our computers in the nice cozy house.

Yesterday's For Better Or For Worse comic addressed this issue. The 20-something woman is talking about her plan to teach in the far north, to encounter another culture, to live in a primitive way, get in touch with history and the wilderness. Her boyfriend's face falls - please keep in touch. Oh, I'll email you, she replies.

I hope you do write to Wiley - I would love to hear more from her on this topic.

Purple Bass - you're probably right about people not being meant to live in Scotland (or other high latitude places). Maybe we are evolved for a low latitude day/night pattern and we haven't been in the far north/south long enough for a biological adjustment. My grandmother grew up in a peasant culture in Lithuania and talked about the very long work days in summer - from sunup to sundown.

Hey, all you cave people who liked Lights Out - let's do it together. This is the perfect time to start planning - to get our room darkening shades, figure out how to cover our light-up devices, prepare our families, and generally get excited about trying out this idea. This is one of those things that is so out of the mainstream that a support group is really needed - and here we are.

This is hello and farewell for a while from me. We leave on vaction tomorrow morning, so I may check in later today, but I'll be gone 'til after Labor Day.

So long, cave folks, have a good rest-of-August.

Daylily

Grimalkin

Fri, Aug-20-04, 09:04

Purple Bass - you're probably right about people not being meant to live in Scotland (or other high latitude places). Maybe we are evolved for a low latitude day/night pattern and we haven't been in the far north/south long enough for a biological adjustment.

I'm no paleontologist, but haven't most of the earliest human remains been found in places close to equatorial regions, like central Africa?

I've lived near the equator, and I remember how comfortable it was to go to bed around 9pm (well after dark) and wake up around 5 to see the sunrise...

Purplebass, I agree that the discussions here are far more *interesting* than most of the topics on the Atkins board, but I think the whole Paleo approach involves a quite different (and more scientific IMHO) mindset.

JenofWi

Fri, Aug-20-04, 10:16

Hi.
Daylily, we homeschool too. Our kids are 7 and 4. We're very unstructured.
We usually go to bed at 9 - 9:30. But any earlier and my whole family would mutiny.
I plan to get new shades when we move - which should be soon.
We got rid of our alarm clock. We never used it as an alarm, just as a clock to look at when we couldn't sleep. My husband uses a little battery operated alarm that puts off no light. That part was easy for us.
You could throw a towel over your clock at night, cover it with duct tape or stick it under your bed. (I'm always looking for the low tech answer!)
I used to have major sleeping problems before this diet change. Once I switched to low carb eating, my sleeping got so much better.
I remember in the book Wiley wrote In the winter get as much sleep as you can without getting divorced or fired. I htought that was pretty funny.
I would love to hear how the writers live. What a great idea.
TwlightZ, tell Wiley I say Hi.

PurpleBass

Fri, Aug-20-04, 12:57

...[book] about menopause (Sex, Lies, and Menopause) which is on my list to read. I am 52 and just started menopause with a bang this year. A friend who read it already told me Wiley believes we should not have menopause, that it is unnatural, animals don't cease to be capable of reproduction so we shouldn't either. Hmmm. I think the cavewomen were like us in this respect, and didn't take any hormones for it either.

Daylily

Hi Daylily - I'm not so sure about the menopause thing, I remember reading somewhere that female lions also go through something like it. (A Google search for "lion menopause" turned up a few amusing hits, including "Menopause the Musical"... ?! :) ).

Evolutionarily, it seems that females of most mammal species, including humans, have menopause for one reason: so we can finish raising the last of our young to maturity before we fall apart and die. Cheery, no?

I definitely agree about the hormones though. That seems very much a case of modern doctors deciding to mess about with something we don't truly understand. (For once I'm glad to be a little bit younger, and let all the baby boomers go first...)

daylily

Tue, Sep-14-04, 10:07

HI, everyone,

I've started my Lights Out plan for this winter. I've been going to bed at 9:30 for almost a week. (I did stay up later last night due to Mom's Night Out) It's going well for me - I've been falling asleep quickly and staying in bed until 7 am, though I generally wake up about an hour earlier. This isn't quite to Wiley's recommendation of 9.5 hours of sleep, but it's a start. Haven't got the room darkening shades yet, so the bedroom is not dark enough.

I've started to read "Sex, Lies, and Menopause." She strongly recommends bio-identical hormones. Purple Bass - I really liked hearing about the value of menopause in nature - to have time to raise the youngest child before dying. It makes real sense. I will keep this idea in mind as I read SLM. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I must say this is causing me to question her conclusions in Lights Out as well. So far, what I've got from SLM is that hormones keep us in harmony with the universe and nature hates it when our reproductive hormone levels go down after menopause, so replacement is needed.

It seems to me that there's still a lot of hormone action in our bodies, even after reproduction shuts down. Plus, the idea that we need a non-reproductive time to contine to raise our children without adding more gives a real Mother-Nature-approved value to post menopausal life.

Yeah, we baby boomers are a great guinea pig generation, lol.

Who else is going to bed earlier?

Alice

MichaelG

Tue, Sep-14-04, 17:30

Here in Queensland's sub tropics on average (we're a big State so it varies) in summer, dawn is about 5 and sunset about 7, with the opposite in Winter). Further south there is a much greater variety and in Tasmania they have British type daylight hours.
The southern states have had daylight saving in the summer but this has always been rejected in Queensland as it would mean sunsets about 8 pm, which would be very strange for us!

It is still common for older Queenslanders to get up at 4.30 and retire at 9.00. Even 20 years ago TV here used to finish at 10 o'clock with the national anthem!

Now there's a lot more nocturnal activity, and I don't think any research has been done on whether this has affected people at all. We even have late night news on TV, and it's 24 hours programming. There's been a huge rise in asthma and Attention Deficit Disorder in kids, but who knows - diet, chemicals, ...

Michael
Australia

MichaelG

Tue, Sep-14-04, 17:35

me again. How's this for cute..
On tv until about 1980, about 7.30 in the evening a little 'ad' would come on with two big teddy- bear- clad actors and an overvoice " Now, children, it's time to clean your teeth, say your prayers, kiss mummy and daddy goodnight, and HOP into bed! Goodnight girls and boys."

This was a signal that the really raunchy shows like Starsky and Hutch or the Dukes of Hazzard were about to begin!

AAAAHHH!
Michael

Monique723

Wed, Sep-15-04, 05:59

Interesting article on night lights and childhood leukemia.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040908/hl_nm/health_leukaemia_dc

Grimalkin

Wed, Sep-15-04, 09:09

I haven't read Lights Out - how much sleep are we supposed to be getting? 9.5 hours seems like a lot to me - how come so much?

I usually nod off around 10:30, and wake up on my own around 6. I only sleep about 7.5 hours most nights. This time of year I get to see the sun rise - I love sitting outside drinking my coffee and watching that!

toopoles

Wed, Sep-15-04, 12:55

Some of the things in this book made a lot of sense to me, especially the part about craving carbs to help us sleep. It was interesting and thought provoking. It also made me think about why I can't lose weight/control what I eat very well in the summer, but I can do well in the winter. All the weight that I have lost has been lost during the wintertime. Now that makes sense to me, somewhat.

The last couple of weeks, I have been craving carbs and gaining weight. My schedule has been horrific and I have had to be up at all hours. What I want is to stop craving the carbs. So I started trying to go to bed earlier. (This is a big shift for me, almost a seven hour difference.) The carb cravings have diminished with the change in bedtime, but they haven't stopped.

Marty

daylily

Fri, Sep-17-04, 06:39

This is a test. I've tried posting here twice and my internet connection failed both times.

daylily

Fri, Sep-17-04, 06:51

OK, the test worked so I'm trying again.

Monique - thank you so much for the link! It really backs up what Wiley is saying in Lights Out.

Grimalkin - Lights Out is a big book with lots of complex ideas, but I'll have a shot at a summary.

Widespread, inexpensive, artificial lighting is a very new thing. Rural areas of the US were not completely electrified until the late 60's/early 70's. According to Wiley's research even as recently as a hundred years ago people got 9 to 10 hours of sleep, especially in winter when the days are short.

Our pineal glands register light and dark and if we don't get enough time of true darkness we don't produce enough melatonin. That in turn screws up our other hormones and our health in general. Wiley believes that many cancers are caused by exposure to too much light and not enough darkness/sleep. See the link posted by Monique.

Here's how she ties it in with sugar: In nature there is lots of light only in the summer. This is also when the fruit is ripe and high levels of carbohydrates are available. Humans take advantage of this to mate. Wiley believes that most pregnancies started in summer for a birth in the spring, when food becomes more available again.

Also, the summer carbs brought on increased insulin, fat storage and cholesterol production which prepared us for winter. We could use up our fat stores when food was scarce. She even says that cholesterol acts as a sort of cellular antifreeze!

Nowadays we keep the lights on late - even all night. Our bodies think it's summer and we crave carbs. Sugar is available all year too. We're always awake and eating carbs getting ready for a winter that never comes.

Her recommendation is a minimum of 9.5 hours of sleep in a totally darkened room for the darkest 7 months of the year. In summer it's ok to stay up late and work or party, but winter with it's increased darkness and sleep must follow.

Hope this helps.

daylily

Fri, Sep-17-04, 07:01

OH, it's so wonderful to see that last post. That was my third attempt.

I'd like to add that the Lights Out idea makes more and more sense to me. Artificial lighting is a particular manifestation of the industrial revolution that I had come to take so for granted that it surprised me when I realized how new and different things are now. This is a change in our culture almost on a par with the agricultural revolution.

I believe we are still in the midst of this change. Even 30 years ago, when I was a young adult, people went to bed earlier than they do now. Then, one am was staying up late. Now, that's just the beginning of the evening for some.

Of course, my grandparents couldn't believe how late young folks stayed up in the 60's. They were the first generation to have electric light available and they used it to extend daylight by only a few hours. For the most part the slept by the same schedule they grew up with.

Wiley thinks the soaring rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease directly tie in to our endless summers of light and sugar consumption. She even suggests that this may lead to our extinction as a species.

I'm trying to sleep more, but it's hard. We're going camping this weekend. I hope I get to see some real darkness. For sure I'll be sleeping and rising more in synch with the sun.

Hellistile

Fri, Sep-17-04, 08:17

I have been reading this thread with great interest as I live in an area where there is a lot of daylight hours in the summer and only 4-6 hours in the winter. Trying to sleep for 20 hours during the shortest days of the winter months would be impossible here. However, I do find that my energy levels and sleepiness correspond directly with the amount of daylight hours available. During the summer I bounce out of bed at 5 am bright eyed and bushy tailed and now (today) I could barely drag my rear end out of bed at 6:30. Don't know how I'll get through this winter.

cbcb

Sat, Sep-18-04, 16:05

One great way (for me) to get back in the rhythm of things is to get away to a different environment a little closer to nature... even a bed-and-breakfast in the country, and even better, camping at a nice mild spot some nice time of the year. Actually being out in the environment where your activities are influenced by being outside helps you sleep like a baby, I find.

Up north, the same goes for skiing!

Nothing I've done at home (melatonin, changing bedtimes etc.) has had as much definite impact on my adjusting to day-night cycles as simply going camping for a single overnight trip... it's been kind of amazing.

Zuleikaa

Sat, Sep-18-04, 16:15

cbcb

Sat, Sep-18-04, 16:42

I hear you and I feel you!!! I have severe SAD and have spent a lot of time trying to discover a solution. Well, this year I think I've found it!!! It's supplementing with vitamin D!! I'm off antidepressants and popping vitamin D pills like 5 times a day!! It's made a great change in me!!

That's interesting. Can I ask how you usually respond to sunlight - are you an 'I love sunlight' person or an 'I love shade and night' person? Do you tan, are you pale, are you from one of those cold dark parts of Europe as far as ancestry or not?

Thanks. (Also, what kind/variety of vitamin D do you take, if I may ask?)

:D

TwilightZ

Sat, Sep-18-04, 20:17

Zuleikaa

Sat, Sep-18-04, 21:03

I've checked original research and it's actually very hard to overdose with natural vitamin D. All vitamin D toxicity cases have been with man made vitamin D. Vitamin D has been proven nontoxic at doses of 50k/day for 6 months and at 25k/day for 4 years.

Zuleikaa

Sat, Sep-18-04, 21:26

cbcd
I'm definitely a sun person!!! I'm not a night owl at all!!! I can sit in the sun forever just soaking it up!!! I'm a light skinned African American and I tan beautifully. Funnily enough, the research shows that peoples of African descent and Northern Europeans both have natural vitamin D deficiencies.

It's kinda weird. I'm now going to work in the dark and after upping my vitamin D dose for a few days I actually started enjoying the dark before dawn, lol!!! That is so NOT me!!!

I take vitamin D from fish oils as softgels. Each contains 400 IU of vitamin D and 600 IU vitamin A. Vitamin A has also been found not toxic when taken with vitamin D. I take 6,000 mg per day in five divided doses. I posted a lot of this information in my journal. You can also take cod liver oil.

For those of African or Northern European descent or those with SAD or depression you go a little higher than the suggested dose. The suggested dose of each is as follows:

1 tsp. cod liver oil per 50 pounds of body weight.
800-1000 IUs of vitamin D per 50 pounds of body weight.

It's generally suggested that people should be getting a minimum of 3,000 IU of vitamin D a day from all sources (food, sun, supplements).

There is also a test you can have your doctor order to see if you are vitamin D deficient. That info is in my journal also.

I am totally off anti depression medication and am only taking vitamin D for my SAD and winter depression (I do take a lot of other supplements).

cbcb

Sun, Sep-19-04, 01:55

Wow, that's interesting.

>Funnily enough, the research shows that peoples of African descent and Northern Europeans both have natural vitamin D deficiencies.<

Hmm. I wonder if they need the same amounts or if the amounts differ?

I can imagine Northern Europeans simply not getting much at all (but maybe not requiring tons).

And I'd at least guess that there could be two mechanisms at work in people of African descent - maybe because so much of Africa is SO sunny there's some rate-limiting of vitamin D absorption from the sun? Either that or over time because there was so much sun the body adapted to run optimally on more vitamin D than those in other climes... such that just getting a normal 'somewhere in the U.S.' dose of vitamin D from the sun isn't really enough.

Or, neither!

Will go experiment with some natural vitamin D this week. (I'm a very pale-don't-like-the-sun Northern/Western-European-descent person who feels best when it's overcast, storming, or night. So it may be interesting to see what a little extra natural D does for me, or to me.) :) :cool:

Hellistile

Mon, Sep-20-04, 10:19

I hear you and I feel you!!! I have severe SAD and have spent a lot of time trying to discover a solution. Well, this year I think I've found it!!! It's supplementing with vitamin D!! I'm off antidepressants and popping vitamin D pills like 5 times a day!! It's made a great change in me!!

Thanks for the tip Zuleikaa. I take a very low dosage of D (via cod liver oil) daily. Perhaps I will up it a bit now that the days are much shorter and getting shorter by the minute. I read an article somewhere about native dark-skinned africans not being able to absorb the vitamin D from sunlight as well as lighter skinned peoples, but for the life of me can't remember where.

MichaelG

Mon, Sep-20-04, 19:58

A quick check with the "indigenous" side of my family has come up with the opinion that rickets (softening of the leg bones in infants) caused by vitamin D deficiency was unknown amongst traditional Australian aborigines despite a traditional absence of dairy etc in their diet and an often perilously precarious food supply!.

Michael Gardner
Australia

TheCaveman

Tue, Sep-21-04, 14:08

mio1996

Tue, Sep-21-04, 16:11

Zuleikaa

Tue, Sep-21-04, 16:16

We've turned around our natural rhythms and then wonder why we get sick or don't function well.

daylily

Thu, Sep-23-04, 08:38

I really enjoyed the Vitamin D link. Thanks for posting it Caveman.

I can't resist adding to this discussion by mentioning an article about skin color I read in some science magazine (can't remember which one). Article stated that dark skin is protective of folic acid stores for people living in low latitudes. Folks indigenous to higher latitudes have lighter skin to allow for better Vitamin D production, but sacrifice in the folic acid area.

I haven't heard before that sun exposure is bad for our folic acid levels. Does anyone know more about this?

My winter sleeping plan is going well so far. Yesterday was autumnal equinox for those of us in northern hemisphere. You guys in the SH can soon start your stay up late time, but here in the NH it's hibernation time. I have been going to bed around 9:30 most nights since about September 9. I have given up pushing myself to get up in time to take a morning walk (started walking in the afternoon - better for Vitamin D production). It's sure paying off - I fall asleep quickly, sleep pretty well, and am in bed for at least 9 hours. I hope to continue this trend as the season of darkness progresses and sleep even more.

It is amazing that people don't link tiredness with the need to sleep. It's like the ideal is to "get by" on 5 or 6 hours of sleep. We cave folk'll show 'em. I just love getting plenty of sleep.

Sweet dreams, everyone

yodasmum

Thu, Sep-23-04, 09:26

I also hope your tabula rasa is rapidly filling up with wisdom and truth.

I know I am missing something very important here. Where did you find the original message about this book? Sorry to be so nosy.

yodasmum

Thu, Sep-23-04, 09:32

Yeek! Some how my post ended up in the wrong place! Sorry!

TheCaveman

Wed, Sep-29-04, 09:19

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/9_25_99/bob2.htm

Slumber's Unexplored Landscape
People in traditional societies sleep in eye-opening ways

By Bruce Bower

Ah, the sweet simplicity of sleep. You tramp into your bedroom with sagging eyelids and stifle a yawn. After disrobing, you douse the lights and climb into bed. Maybe a little reading or television massages the nerves, loosening them up for slumber's velvet fingers. In a while, you nod off. Suddenly, an alarm clock's shrill blast breaks up the dozefest as the sun pokes over the horizon. You feel a bit drowsy but shake it off and face the new day. Images of a dream dissolve like sugar in the morning's first cup of coffee.

There's a surprising twist, however, at the heart of this familiar ritual. It simply doesn't apply to people currently living outside of the modern Western world—or even to inhabitants of Western Europe as recently as 200 years ago.

In such contexts, and probably throughout human evolution, solitary shut-eye organized around a regular bedtime and a single bout of sleep proves about as common as stock car racing or teleconferencing. Surprisingly, anthropologists have rarely scrutinized the sleep patterns and practices of different cultures, much less those of different classes and ethnic groups in the United States.

An initial attempt to draw back the veils of sleep in hunter-gatherer groups and other traditional societies has uncovered a wide variety of sleep customs, reports anthropologist Carol M. Worthman of Emory University in Atlanta. None of these snooze styles, however, looks anything like what modern Western folk take for granted.

This finding raises profound questions for the burgeoning discipline of sleep research, Worthman says. Over the past 50 years, scientists have avidly delved into slumber's biology. Early research identified periods of rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep, during which intense dreams often occur. Current efforts pursue genes involved in wakefulness and sleeping (SN: 8/14/99, p. 100). Researchers have also taken strides toward treating insomnia and other sleep disturbances.

While investigators readily concede that they don't yet know why people sleep and dream, they assume that they at least know how people should sleep: alone or with a partner for a solid chunk of the night. Sleep studies therefore take place in laboratories where individuals catch winks while hooked up to a bevy of brain and body monitors.

However, the distinctive sleep styles of non-Western groups may mold sleep's biology in ways undreamed of in sleep labs, Worthman suggests. They may influence factors ranging from sleep-related genes to the brain's electrical output during various sleep phases.

"It's time for scientists to get out into natural sleep environments," Worthman remarks. "It's embarrassing that anthropologists haven't done this, and the lack of such work is impeding sleep research."

A seemingly innocent question awakened Worthman to her discipline's ignorance of how people sleep. In 1994, she had a conversation with pediatrician Ronald E. Dahl of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who studies the effects of mood disorders on sleep. He asked the Emory scientist to tell him what anthropologists know about the history and prehistory of sleep. "[My] bald, if somewhat overstated, answer was 'zero,'" she says.

Sleep scarcely figures in the literature on either cross-cultural differences or human evolution, Worthman realized. Investigators generally relegate slumber to the sidelines, treating it as a biological given with little potential for variation from one place to another, she holds.

A few researchers have bucked this trend. For instance, anthropologist James J. McKenna of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana has reported that babies in many countries outside the United States sleep next to or in the same room as their parents. Contact with a parent's body helps regulate an infant's breathing and other physiological functions, he asserts, perhaps lowering the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SN: 12/4/93, p. 380).

McKenna's work should have roused investigators of traditional societies out of their sleep-related torpor, Worthman says. Yet, even seasoned field-workers have tended to ignore sleep—at least in their published works—while describing food production, sexual practices, and other facets of daily life.

So, Worthman contacted seven researchers who she knew had intimate knowledge of one or more traditional societies, including nomadic foragers, herders, and village-based farmers. Among these far-flung populations, none of the investigators, by their own admission, had systematically studied how people sleep. After plumbing what the researchers had absorbed about nighttime activities, Worthman has assembled a preliminary picture of sleep practices in 10 non-Western populations.

Worthman's findings rip the covers off any lingering suspicions that people everywhere sleep pretty much alike. Far from the wallpapered confines of middle-class bedrooms, sleep typically unfolds in shared spaces that feature constant background noise emanating from other sleepers, various domestic animals, fires maintained for warmth and protection from predators, and other people's nearby nighttime activities.

Groups in Worthman's analysis include Ache foragers in Paraguay, !Kung hunter-gatherers in Africa, Swat Pathan herders in Pakistan, and Balinese farmers in Indonesia. For all these groups and six others, communal sleep equals safe sleep, because sleepers can count on there being someone else up or easily awakened at all hours of the night to warn others of a threat or emergency.

Adult sleepers in traditional societies recline on skins, mats, wooden platforms, the ground, or just about anything except a thick, springy mattress. Pillows or head supports are rare, and people doze in whatever they happen to be wearing. Virtually no one, including children, keeps a regular bedtime. Individuals tend to slip in and out of slumber several times during the night. In these unplugged worlds, darkness greatly limits activity and determines the time allotted to sleep. Folks there frequently complain of getting too much sleep, not too little.

Many rituals occur at night and exploit the need to sleep. For instance, initiation rites often force participants to cope with sleep deprivation. In other ceremonies, individuals enter somnolent, or near-sleep, states in order to magnify an occasion's psychological impact and to induce spiritual visions.

Consider the communal sleep of the Gebusi, New Guinea, rainforest dwellers, who grow fruit in small gardens and occasionally hunt wild pigs. Women, girls, and babies crowd into a narrow section of a community longhouse to sleep on mats. Men and boys retreat to an adjacent, more spacious longhouse area, where they sleep on wooden platforms.

Gebusi females retire at dark for about 10 hours of rest and sleep. In contrast, the men stay up later and frequently conduct rituals. About once a month, everyone attends an all-night dance and feast, catching up on sleep the next day.

Each week or two, Gebusi men go to s‚ances led by a "spirit medium," at which they try to keep spirits awake throughout the night. Participants attempt to slip in and out of a near-sleep state as the medium, who's usually adept at operating in this half-conscious condition, sings about the spirit world and other matters.

As in most of the other studied societies, the Gebusi express concerns about exposure to ghosts, evil spirits, and witchcraft during sleep. They consider deep sleep risky, since a sleeper's spirit may wander off too far and fail to return. The Gebusi view group slumber as a way to lessen the danger of spirit loss, which they view as especially likely while a person dreams.

Whether or not one believes that sleeping puts a person's spirit at risk, slumber appears to have crucial effects on body and mind. A culture's sleeping style serves as a growing child's training ground for managing biologically based systems of attention and alertness, Worthman contends. Balinese farmers provide a striking example of this sleep-related tutoring.

Balinese infants are carried and held continuously by caregivers so that they learn to fall asleep even in hectic and noisy situations. This grooms them to exhibit what the Balinese call "fear sleep" later in life, Worthman says. Children and adults enter fear sleep by suddenly slumping over in a deep slumber when they or family members confront intense anxiety or an unexpected fright. They are literally scared into sleep.

Infants in middle-class American homes, who usually sleep alone, may not learn to ground their sleeping and waking cycles in a flow of sensations that include bodily contact, smells, and background noises, Worthman proposes. In fact, babies forced to bounce back and forth between the sensory overload of the waking world and the sensory barrenness of dark, quiet bedrooms may often find it difficult to relax, fall asleep, wake up, or concentrate, she theorizes.

Only cross-cultural studies of children's sleep and behavior can clarify such issues, Worthman says.

She described her findings and their implications in June at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies in Orlando, Fla.

Sleep researchers at the meeting expressed considerable excitement about the potential for cross-cultural studies. "Worthman is doing innovative and important work," comments neuroscientist Robert A. Stickgold of the Massachusetts Mental Health Center in Boston. "It's awakening us to the many different ways in which people organize sleep."

Stickgold has developed snug-fitting, electrode-studded caps that people can wear in their own beds to measure brain activity linked to REM and other sleep stages. Worthman plans to take these "nightcaps," which hook up to mobile recorders, into the field to study sleep biology in traditional societies.

"I've been hoping anthropologists would examine sleep cross-culturally for the past 20 years," remarks psychologist Mary A. Carskadon of the Brown University School of Medicine in Providence, R.I.

Carskadon has directed studies that indicate that the body's so-called biological clock gets pushed back during adolescence. Teenagers may require more sleep than adults and may have a natural tendency to go to sleep later and wake up later than at other ages, she says.

A related study, directed by neuroscientist Louis J. Ptáček of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, finds that a specific gene yanks the biological clock forward in some adults. People who have this gene tend to fall asleep by 8:30 p.m. and to awaken before 5:30 a.m., the researchers report in the September Nature Medicine.

In modern Western cultures, teens' backward shift in sleep timing is considered a nuisance or a sign of rebellion, while extreme early birds get diagnosed as sleep disordered. In traditional settings, however, highly variable sleep schedules among individuals and age groups prove invaluable, since they allow for someone to be awake or easily roused at all times should danger arise, Worthman holds.

If sleeping patterns in traditional societies remain little known, those of prehistoric humans are a total mystery. Still, in settings that roughly mimic ancient nighttime conditions, sleep undergoes an intriguing shift, says psychiatrist Thomas A. Wehr of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in Bethesda, Md.

When prohibited from using artificial light from dusk until dawn, people who formerly slumbered in solid blocks of time begin to sleep in two periods separated by an hour or two of quiet rest and reflection.

Wehr and his coworkers asked 15 healthy adults to rest and sleep in darkness for 14 hours (6 p.m. to 8 a.m.) each night for several weeks. Volunteers slept for 11 hours each of the first few nights, apparently to catch up on their sleep. They then settled into a pattern of lying awake for a couple of hours before falling asleep for 3 to 5 hours in the evening. An hour or so of quiet wakefulness ensued, followed by about 4 more hours of sleep in the early morning.

Many mammals sleep in two major bouts during the night or day, Wehr says. Animals from rodents to giraffes and the experimental human sleepers secrete elevated amounts of the hormone prolactin when they rest quietly, even if they are not asleep. Prolactin may promote a state of calmness that accompanies sleep, the NIMH scientist suggests.

Participants in Wehr's study usually awoke out of REM sleep to end their first slumber session. During REM sleep, the brain becomes about as active as it is when wide awake. One function of this sleep phase may be to set the stage for waking up, Wehr holds.

If prehistoric people slept in two nightly periods, then regularly awakening out of REM sleep may have allowed them to reflect on and remember their dreams in a semiconscious state that's generally unavailable to modern sleepers. Sleep compressed into a single stint may thus encourage modern humans to lose touch with dreams, myths, and fantasies, Wehr argues.

These results, first reported in 1993, also raise the possibility that people who wake up once or twice each night don't necessarily suffer from insomnia. "A natural human sleep pattern may reassert itself in an unwelcome world and get labeled as a disorder," Wehr says.

The two-phase sleep pattern observed by Wehr corresponds remarkably closely to the way in which most Western Europeans slept between 500 and 200 years ago, according to historian A. Roger Ekirch of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg. While doing research for a book on nighttime behaviors during that era, Ekirch came across several hundred references to what he identifies as "segmented sleep."

From country farms and villages to city apartments, early modern Europeans usually sank each evening into what they called a "first sleep," which lasted for several hours. Shortly after midnight, they awoke and spent 1 or 2 hours in a "watching period." A "second," or "morning," sleep followed.

The watching period presented many opportunities, Ekirch notes. People coming out of their first sleep often stayed in bed to pray, converse with a bedfellow, contemplate the day's events or the meaning of a dream, or simply let their minds wander in a semiconscious state of contentment that was prized at the time.

A 16th-century physician wrote that many laborers dozed off exhausted at the start of each night. Sexual intercourse with their wives typically occurred in the watching period, after a recuperative first sleep.

These days, Western societies treat sleep more as an unavoidable stretch of downtime than as a prelude to sex or a time for inner reflection. Only intensive investigations across cultures and classes will illuminate the lushness of sleep's landscape, Worthman predicts.

Adds Wehr, "We're going to have to reconceptualize what it means to sleep normally."

###

daylily

Thu, Sep-30-04, 08:53

Thanks, Caveman! What a great article!

This really helps with understanding my mixed reaction to Wiley's book. So much of it seems so right, but a lot of missing pieces too.

I am familiar with some of these ideas. I practiced "attachment parenting" with my babies, including co-family sleeping, also known as the family bed. We all slept together in one room, with most of us in the same bed for several years. People who do this are aware of the practice of sleeping with babies in "primitive" cultures and wish to replicate this. We also carried our babies around with us much of the day.

I love the idea of segmented sleep and not seeing night wakings as a "disorder." This really answers the questions about how people without artificial lighting can sleep through long winter nights. The answer: they don't First they sleep, then they think about their dreams, talk, and have sex. Then they sleep some more.

Those fires people were tending surely made as much light as our electric devices and light seeping through the edges of the shades.

As for the monthly all-night sessions, I bet those tended to co-incide with full moons. Women with fertility problems are often advised to coordinate the light in their bedrooms with the moon's cycles. i.e. complete darkness for most of the month, then the shades open or a dim night light for the three nights around the full moon. Wiley doesn't get into moonlight at all, as far as I can remember.

And even with all the above, it still seems these folks get more sleep than we do.

I'll sign up for everything except the part about no mattress or pillow!

Quinadal

Thu, Sep-30-04, 08:57

I sleep when I'm tired. I work 12 hr night shift 3 nights a week. Sometimes I sleep days, sometimes I sleep during the night.

Hellistile

Thu, Sep-30-04, 10:30

I like the idea of communal sleeping and it is done all over the world because it's a custom or because people are too poor to have separate bedrooms. I come from an eastern european background where most people are too poor to have more than one bedroom or they all sleep in the main living area. All family members sleep together, children, parents, grandparents. Children who sleep with their families have a lower tendency to develop fears of monsters, bedwetting, etc. because they feel loved and more secure. Just my honest opinion.

batgirl

Thu, Sep-30-04, 18:30

I got a serendipitous chance to test the lights out theory, and I didn't even realize it. Our electricity was our for a total of 10 days (7 days with hurricane frances, 3 with jeanne). No power, no lights. What I liked best was *no noise* from the a/c and other noisy appliances.

I also had no alarm clock. It was funny, most days my hubbie has to wake me up, repeatedly. When the power was out, I was getting out of bed first, on time to get to work, and waking him up. Plus, I wasn't nearly as groggy.

The only problem was the heat for some of that time. I don't sleep very well on muggy nights with no a/c. Still, I think I'll go to bed now and see how I feel in the morning. ;)

batgirl

daylily

Fri, Oct-01-04, 06:53

Wow, batgirl, I'm sorry you had to go through all that hurricane stuff, but how neat to live without electricity for a while to see what it's like.

The fact that you report better sleep and feeling more rested really reinforces my belief that there's something to this stuff.

I will discuss "segmented sleep" with my dh and see if he wants to try it as a way to deal with his chronic insomnia.

Digression: Another benefit of the power being out over a large area is the ability to see the true appearance of the night sky. Or was it too cloudy to see stars?

toopoles

Fri, Oct-22-04, 19:41

I wanted to bump this thread back up as I am starting to need large amounts of sleep. It didn't happen in September or early October, but about two weeks ago, I started noticing that I was tired all the time and started to need about nine hours of sleep a night. Now the sleep that I need to feel well is up to about ten hours a night, before I can wake up without and alarm clock.

Is anyone else experiencing the same thing?

Also last night I got the chance to sleep in a totally dark room at a friends house (Basement, no windows or digital lights) and my sleep seemed more restful. I still needed more than I had the chance to get, but I did wake up on my own earlier than I would have at home. My house is tough to darken unless I put up special shades. I already have mini blinds and curtains, but they don't block enough light. (It still bothers me.)

I am glad that I have become aware of these changes.

And does anyone know or ar there any studies about vitamin d production and our sleep cycles? I know I must be short of this vitamin in the winter so I was wondering if that also affected the sleep cycles.

Have a great week-end everyone, Marty

cbcb

Fri, Oct-22-04, 21:06

does anyone know or ar there any studies about vitamin d production and our sleep cycles? I know I must be short of this vitamin in the winter so I was wondering if that also affected the sleep cycles.

Kinda...
Vitamin D is well known for its effects on helping to maintain normal calcium levels, but it also exerts influence on the brain, spinal cord, and hormone-producing tissues of the body that may be important in the regulation of mood.19 A double-blind controlled study found that mood improved in healthy people without SAD who received 400 or 800 IU per day of vitamin D for five days in late winter.20 However, no difference in vitamin D levels has been observed between people with seasonal depression and those without,21 22 and the antidepressant activity of light therapy has been shown to be independent of changes in levels of vitamin D.23 A large study of women found that supplementation with 400 IU per day of vitamin D had no impact on the incidence of winter depression.24 Any benefits of vitamin D on SAD remain unproven.
http://www.vitacost.com/science/hn/Concern/Seasonal_Affective_Disorder.htm

J Nutr Health Aging. 1999;3(1):5-7. Related Articles, Links

Vitamin D vs broad spectrum phototherapy in the treatment of seasonal affective disorder.

Gloth FM 3rd, Alam W, Hollis B.

The Department of Medicine, The Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland 21218-2895, USA.

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) is prevalent when vitamin D stores are typically low. Broad-spectrum light therapy includes wavelengths between 280-320 nm which allow the skin to produce vitamin D. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency might play a role in SAD. A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a group of 15 subjects with SAD. Eight subjects received 100,000 I.U. of vitamin D and seven subjects received phototherapy. At the onset of treatment and after 1 month of therapy subjects were administered the Hamilton Depression scale, the SIGH-SAD, and the SAD-8 depression scale. All subjects also had serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH D) measured before and 1 week after intervention therapy. All subjects receiving vitamin D improved in all outcome measures. The phototherapy group showed no significant change in depression scale measures. Vitamin D status improved in both groups (74% vitamin D group, p < 0.005 and 36% phototherapy group, p < 0.01). Improvement in 25-OH D was significantly associated with improvement in depression scale scores (r2=0.26; p=0.05). Vitamin D may be an important treatment for SAD. Further studies will be necessary to confirm these findings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10888476&dopt=Abstract

Some other studies showed administration of the active form of vitamin D inhibited slow wave sleep (but increased waking/REM sleep alternation), or delayed sleep when given at night. I don't know that either of these I'm just paraphrasing here have direct application to the normal administration of vitamin D. (But on the other hand, if you consider that sunlight enhances vitamin D, I suppose it's not such a jump to say that it's logical that some kind of anti-sleep effect of vitamin D would be seen. But to make an even further albeit tenuous jump... just because you are outside in the day when it's light out, doesn't mean you can't sleep that night. I think if I'd get any takeaway from this it might be that 'twere I to take a vitamin D supplement, I'd be doing it during the day rather than right before bed.)

daylily

Sat, Oct-23-04, 07:30

How interesting, toopoles!

I have found it easier to sleep and have been able to increase the amount of sleep I am getting. I've got my bedroom darker, but not yet completely dark.

I'm still digesting the Vitamin D connection. I'll try taking my cod liver oil in the morning from now on.

MichaelG

Sun, Oct-24-04, 19:33

Great article from the Caveman. I lived in Greece for a very short while, an in common with many Mediterranean countries they have "common rest hours" in the afternoon - i.e. the Siesta, then party on till midnight. I believe that in places like Uruguay they have dinner at 11 o'clock at night. I reckon the bed at 11, up at 8 thing is a typically north American / European thing.

Was watching a DVD "the day after tomorrow" the other day, where an official was awakened by a phone call, and the camera shot focussed on the bedside clock which showed 7.30 , obviously being a metaphor for "real early, poor bugger being woken up in the middle of the night". The Queensland audience in our lounge room cracked up at that one, by 8.30 most of us have done our supermarket shopping and looking for a McDonalds! (or in my case a medium rare steak).

Michael
Australia

kaeleen

Sun, Oct-31-04, 11:17

Fascinating topic.

I especially enjoyed reading the article posted by Caveman.
The bit about segmented sleep makes a lot of sense to me. I've noticed that sometimes I will nod off during the 10 o'clock news, sleep for several hours and then awaken shortly after midnight feeling quite awake. I read for about an hour and then feel quite sleepy again.

We just turned the clocks back last night. Lately I have been feeling the urge to go to bed earlier but have ignored it so far. After reading this thread, I think I will begin going to bed at 9 pm. I usually have to be up by 5 am so this still leaves me in a bit of a sleep deficit according to the recommended 9.5 hrs. Most days I can probably fit in a short siesta after lunch so this might help a bit.

BTW, I have a thin friend who has always said getting lots of sleep is key to maintaining her weight.

cbcb

Sun, Oct-31-04, 11:25

BTW, I have a thin friend who has always said getting lots of sleep is key to maintaining her weight.

That's just the last straw.... see you guys next spring... I'm off for a long winter's nap! :D

kAd

Wed, Nov-10-04, 08:40

I've never even heard of this book before. I'll be sure to add it to my list. :thup:

dionysius

Sun, Nov-14-04, 19:20

I work shiftwork about 6 times a month, meaning im up all night and sleeping in the day. I have to admit its always easier if i make the room pitch black, which i can do with a screen on the window etc.

As regards to going to bed by 9pm, i have difficulty doing that.. and i tend to find sleep works in cycles, so if i do to bed when im not tired, i will lie there for several hours until the next "tired cycle".

I guess over time you could get into the trained habit of going to bed when the sun goes down.. might require a bit of work in this day and age :-)

Iluv2cook

Thu, Nov-18-04, 05:02

Thank you! Thank you! Whoever first suggested this book. I would have never picked it up otherwise.

They never mentioned noctural animals but there probably is an explaination for that. I loved the sense of humor in the book but I bet this is one that is never on a bestseller list. It's just too controversial. I loved the bit about how EVERYTHING is part of the whole. And that we're just a part of the bigger picture so we'd better play along or pay the price.

I thought that fruit sugar was digested very differently than starchy carbs so when they were all lumped together that didn't make sense to me...

toopoles

Sat, Nov-20-04, 23:01

After I ordered it from half.com I did just find it in a bookstore. I was shocked to find it as I had tried and tried and not had any luck. Marty

Hellistile

Tue, Nov-30-04, 09:31

Finally found this book yesterday at the University bookstore and am already on page 130, even though I made it a point to be in bed with the "lights out" by 8:00 p.m. What a fascinating read so far. Thanks to everyone who brought our attention to this book. Should be compulsory reading for everyone on this planet.

toopoles

Tue, Nov-30-04, 13:18

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the book, Hellistile. I am glad that you found it. I had given up ever just finding it on the shelf until I saw it the other day. Now I can tell people it's at the bookstore---2 hours away. :lol: Marty

Hellistile

Tue, Nov-30-04, 14:44

I have just re-read this entire thread. My feelings about the book (I've just finished reading it) are:

1. It confirms my take on eating the paleo way, whole, unprocessed foods but with the addition of dairy. I don't like her reference to tofu though.
2. I loved the comment on fat. If you can't step on it without leaving a greasy mark, it's not suitable for consumption as a healthy fat.
3. I agree with the author about sleep because it makes sense.
4. I love her references to all the low carb ways of eating.

I am going to re-read the book again because I still need to absorb and better understand a few things. I have implemented the going to bed early plan and have added a black plastic shower curtain over my curtain in my bedroom. Luckily (or unluckily), we cannot open our windows in the winter due to the cold and an open window would mean hot water pipes bursting and flooding the apartments. Getting to bed early 7 months of the year will require some sacrifice in that the only life we will have in the evening is shopping for food on the way home from work, preparing supper, doing the dishes and literally falling into bed for the night. So much for hobbies, entertainment, social life. Since I get up at 5:30 a.m. I have to be in bed by at least 8 p.m. So do I opt for a longer life without a life for 7 months of the year, or do I get less sleep, resulting in a shorter life but one that is fuller? That's one decision I need to make.

toopoles

Tue, Nov-30-04, 22:04

I agree with your 4 points.

I eat mostly neanderthin now with the addition of dairy. I feel even better than I did on just neanderthin.

I also liked the comment on fat. :lol:

I think the sleep thing makes sense, but haven't been able to carry through with it. My sleep cycle just doesn't seem to run that way.

I ignored the tofu part.
Marty

Hellistile

Wed, Dec-01-04, 09:37

Yesterday, I taped aluminum foil over my bedroom window and not a shred of light comes through. It's like a cave in my bedroom, completely dark. Can't even see my hand in front of my face even at 1 inch away. Even after 2 nights at 9.5 plus hours of sleep, I have lost my craving for carbs which I have been struggling with since February. I'm really excited about it and plan to continue doing this for at least 2 months as an experiment.

Zuleikaa

Fri, Dec-03-04, 18:26

cbcb

Fri, Dec-03-04, 22:26

I try to get to bed by 9:30. I don't often make it until 10. I use a black sheet at my window held with towel grippers glued to the wall around the windows. It works really well. I am very light sensitive when I sleep at night and am up with the first ray of light the next morning.

If you've ever slept at a Hilton hotel (or a few of the other chains), they know how to help you hibernate. I haven't gone to the expense of doing it with my room (except to make sure the windows are shaded), but things that help:

- keeping it warm in winter and cool in summer
- thick carpet wall to wall
- HEAVY drapes (or, not so heavy drapes with a second heavy blackout liner in back) or two sets of drapes... I think this insulates the room temp and also dampens sound a great degree
- featherbeds are good, or as much fluff as you can stand
- big fluffy pillows (unless you need another kind)
- flannel sheets are great in winter
- soft blankets, copious amounts
- not a lot of electronics and wireless gizmos blinking and humming... if you have them at least keep them at the other end of the room on the other side of a big piece of furniture
- down comforters are good
- not a lot of scratchy or fake fabrics and fills (in my opinion anyway)
- for mattresses, while it's hard to find a good futon mattress, a great high end futon mattress is where I think I got my best night of sleep ever.. it kind of molds to you rather than being a bouncy regular mattress.
- a humidifier or vaporizer at night does wonders - absolute wonders - for dry, irritated skin and sinuses.

TwilightZ

Sat, Dec-04-04, 11:14

If you've ever slept at a Hilton hotel (or a few of the other chains), they know how to help you hibernate.

I agree--I have always slept marvelously well in hotel and motel rooms.

Hellistile

Wed, Dec-08-04, 12:43

I hate to change the subject back to the original topic, but I am jumping for joy since reading this book and implementing the advice in it. I am back on track, I have lost all cravings for carbs and have lost 9 pounds since Nov 29-04. Today as I was walking to work from the bus-stop, such a wonderful, overwhelming feeling of joy to be alive swept over me that I am still flabbergasted. I thank whoever started this thread from the bottom of my heart.

Lobstergal

Wed, Dec-08-04, 12:57

I agree--I have always slept marvelously well in hotel and motel rooms.

I have too. :)

Hellistile

Fri, Dec-10-04, 09:23

Found this on:

Health Sciences Institute e-Alert newsletter

December 09, 2004

Dear Reader,

Trying to lose weight? According to a new study, there's a simple way to improve your chances that your diet will be successful. You don't have to purchase anything, and you don't have to take any prescriptions or exotic supplements. And add this to the bargain: you might also reduce your risk of a disability later in life.

Sound too good to be true? Well it is. Because in order to get this weight-loss benefit you'll be required to do something far more difficult than shell out a few dollars: You'll have to discipline yourself to get more sleep.

Sweet dreams

Except for my nephew who is four years old, I don't believe I know anyone who's getting enough sleep. I don't. My husband doesn't. My friends, family, colleagues ~ none of them seem to get enough sleep on a regular basis. Most of us
are too rushed and too busy (especially at this time of year) to make sure we get seven to eight hours per night, which is considered ideal for most people.

By some estimates, Americans average about six hours per night. That may be enough for some. But if you want to help make your diet work, you'll probably need more than that, according to a study from Columbia University, presented at
the annual scientific meeting of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity (NAASO).

Researchers used almost 10 years of data collected on nearly 18,000 subjects who took part in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES); a study that
gathered information on general dietary and health habits. After accounting for other factors that contribute to obesity, the Columbia team reported these estimates:

* Less than four hours of sleep per night increases obesity risk by 73 percent, compared to subjects who slept seven to nine hours each night
* An average of five hours of sleep per night increases obesity risk by 50 percent
* An average of six hours of sleep per night increases obesity risk by 23 percent

The researchers believe that body chemistry might explain the link between sleep deprivation and obesity. A lack of sleep increases grehlin, a hormone that sends a hunger signal to the brain. At the same time, the level of a protein called
leptin drops. Leptin helps suppress appetite, so when the level is low, appetite increases. Combine too much grehlin and too little leptin, and you've set the stage for an intake of too many calories.

AimeeJoi

Fri, Dec-10-04, 09:49

TwilightZ

Fri, Dec-10-04, 13:57

i havent read the book but i have a question. is it possible that some people need more hours a day of sleep than others. i sleep on average 8-9.5 hrs a night and i still feel really tired . i have always been a sleeper and when i was a baby there was never a problem with me not wanting to go to bed or take a nap. even in highschool whwn my friends were out i would be asleep by 8:30 and never really want to stay up. I fall asleep during movies constantly. Is it possible that i am just a person who requires more sleep. when i have days of from work and sleep whenever i feel like it i dont have any problems with energy so i really think it is sleep deprivation and not a disease or something. i know articles say 8 hours is ideal but i know that doesnt even come close to being enough. Am i just lazy or what?

Articles may say 8 hours, but this book recommends 9.5 hours, and it's my suspicion that some people from northern areas may need more, especially during winter months. I know I need 9 to 10 hours. But also you should try to do as much of your sleeping as you can when it's dark outside and keep your room as dark as possible. I suggest you read the book--it's inexpensive and a great read. There's lots of information, not only on sleep, but exercise and other aspects of lifestyle that will really open your eyes (except if you're sleepy, that is :) )

cbcb

Fri, Dec-10-04, 14:39

What a pleasant thread to have woken up to earlier this morning after a - rare - 11.5 hours of sleep! :) (Am I thin yet???!)

Okay, it was catch-up sleep, but still counts...

LOOPS

Fri, Dec-10-04, 16:46

I've been following this thread and everything seems to ring true about sleep and darkness. Since being married to an astronomer, and thus needing to sleep all sorts of hours, we've had blackout curtains fixed, which cut out around 95% of the light, even when it's sunny outside. Now I can't say I go to bed early, as I wouldn't see my hubby at all, but I can say that I sleep A LOT more with them.

Light is crucial - even if there is a bit in the mornings, I wake up. It's a nightmare when I go to visit England in their Summer (our Winter), as I get put in this room with peach curtains which let in all the light, and the sun comes up at like 5.30am. Aaaargh. Nobody else seems to be affected by this like me. Hubby just sleeps through everything, including hangovers (no such luck for me) Runs in the family though. My brother once started attatching binliners to the curtains at uni whilst doing exams because he just couldn't sleep enough.

I once went to visit a huge long cave in Hawaii. Most bizarre thing happened. We got most of the way down, and it was pitch black, only the sound of dripping water, sat down to appreciate the stillness and quietness, and I promptly fell asleep! Apparently I was out for about 5 minutes when hubby awoke me to go back out. It was soooooo dark and quiet and cool I just conked. Since then I have been convinced I need total and utter darkness and quiet to sleep my best.

I also found natural sounds help me to sleep (water, people, dogs even), but sounds of cars /traffic drives me nuts. The sea is the best - I have been known to conquer ongoing chronic insomnia just sleeping right next to the sea with no other sounds.

Also, we have regular blackouts here as the electricity is not so hot in Chile. When they have ocurred in the evening, I am falling asleep much earlier. I also feel much calmer. Even candlelight seems to produce this effect. I am sure this is to do with melatonin production.

I haven't read that book, but I really want to after all the raves - it sounds very interesting.

Loops

Nancy LC

Fri, Dec-10-04, 18:06

I found the science news article really interesting about the people who experience "fear sleep". That is so not me. I've got the most finicky sleep mechanism ever. However I found out something odd... if I watch a DvD I've seen before, I tend to fall asleep rather quickly. So I exploit that fact by having a DvD beside my bed and the TV on a sleep timer. So I start out running my movie and falling asleep and then the TV cuts out eventually. Works great most of the time, still there are times when even that doesn't work.

Also, I've always been a late night person but I decided to start getting up earlier and now I'm hoping out of bed at 5-5:30 in the morning and going to bed around 8-8:30. The schedule change seems to agree with me.

I'm another person who must sleep in the dark. I'm super sensitive to the light. So when I moved into this house with cut out half circle windows the first thing I did was figure out how to shut the light out of them! My bedroom is very much like a dark cave.

jessica020

Fri, Dec-10-04, 19:02

I'm getting this book next time I go to the library, it sounds very interesting. I have horrible sleeping habits :lol:

Gooserider

Sun, Dec-12-04, 16:18

The book sounds fascinating, but I have one problem from the summaries people have posted so far. In short, the argument goes that we evolved to follow a changing seasonal light schedule, but as I understand my evolutionary history, man evolved in the tropics, where there is little seasonal change. Something doesn't seem to compute?

Gooserider

MichaelG

Sun, Dec-12-04, 19:56

You may be on to something there, Gooserider. If you take two very large and fairly culturally homogeneous countries such as Australia which extends from "North European" type lattitudes into the tropics, and the USA which just about extends into the tropics (does Florida extend south of the Tropic of Cancer? my geography is fuzzy on that) then there should be a range of sleep related disorders / health problems that can be evaluated or researched on depending on what latitude you live.
I wonder if there has ever been any research done.

Michael
Queensland
Australia

Gooserider

Mon, Dec-13-04, 21:50

As I recall, Florida and Texas are JUST north of the tropic region officially. But I agree there should be a variation. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there have been some studies done, and there are variations about as one would expect currently (however details escape me)

I'm more interested in how Wiley & Co. explain the variation if we supposedly evolved where it wouldn't have been as much of a factor. My science classes were a long time back, but I seem to recall there isn't supposed to be a significant variation in the day / night length in the tropics. There may have been a rainy season or some such that had similar effects, but presumably that would have had a different trigger.

Guess I'll need to get the book to find out :D

Gooserider

Duparc

Tue, Dec-28-04, 20:18

I guess I am about to be the odd-one-out here. I read the book a few months ago and it was interesting but I would hesitant to rate it higher. It is a worthy read and I have totally blackened the bedroom as the result but I have suspicion on what is said on the length of sleep. Around 7 hours is my maximum. If I go beyond that point I seem to fall into a second sleep and for the remainder of the day feel very tired indeed. If I arise between the 6th and 7th hour then I awaken refreshed and can continue throughout the day without napping. Darkening the bedroom entirely does appear to provide a more fulfilling sleep but to write a book to prove this point? It's a long story indeed!

Managed to resell it through Amazon.

cbcb

Tue, Dec-28-04, 21:57

So - I've probably asked this somewhere on this site before. But. Anybody else feel much better and have tons more energy when it starts raining or storms out?

What is that about? Can 'more negative ions' account for a pronounced effect?

Monique723

Wed, Dec-29-04, 13:17

I agree with Duparc. If I go beyond 8 to 8 1/2 hours I get a headache. I don't really see how every single human can be programmed for 9 hours or more.

I like the book though.

Gooserider

Wed, Dec-29-04, 23:35

I seem to recall hearing about some study done years back where they put volunteers in a closed environment with NOTHING that would give a time signal for about a month. The idea was to observe what they would do for sleep routines.

As I recollect the results showed that the subjects seemed to settle on an approx 25 - 26 hour per day cycle, including about 9 hours of sleep.

This sort of makes sense in terms of the way timing oscillators work in electronics, it is easier to make an oscillator that runs a little slower and use a feedback circuit to make it trip a little early each cycle than it is to make one that runs an exact frequency w/o feedback. In a human, the 'feedback trigger' would presumably come in the form of day/night changes.

It was an interesting concept and it seems sort of relevant to this.

Gooserider

Duparc

Thu, Dec-30-04, 19:44

Re CBCB's observation. Have to say that in this corner of the hubbub it rains so much that it's only when the sun shines that we feel good and more energised!

cbcb

Thu, Dec-30-04, 20:19

Well, I grew up in a hot, bright locale, so... ! :)

jessica020

Fri, Dec-31-04, 14:57

I finally got around to reading this yesterday, and I really enjoyed it. I don't understand why they would recommend eating soy, but other than that, I agree with most of it, and have been getting at least 9 hours of sleep every night for the past week or so. I have lots of energy during the day!

LOOPS

Fri, Jan-07-05, 07:10

cbcb -

I have the same thing. I LOVE storms and rain. I am at my happiest when these happen. Unfortunately we moved to a very dry part of Chile and now it only rains twice a year! I really miss those storms.

Loops

batgirl

Tue, Jan-11-05, 06:47

Evidently, there is a study that just came out on the subject. I think they just compiled a bunch of data and noted the correlation. Perhaps in the future they will model a study around it.

How to lose weight the easy way: go to sleep for longer (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=599647)

The Christmas break killed my sleep patterns. I have been having trouble getting to sleep before 11pm. bleh. I don't feel so well as a result. (Easier to blame the Christmas Bloat on not sleeping than on overeating ;) )

Soliton

Sun, Jan-30-05, 15:21

I'm going to weigh in with Duparc on the amount of sleep. For the last ten years I seem to have done best with only 6 hours a night, and in college I got only 5. I simply woke up and could not go back to sleep. On the few occasions I did, I would drag around for a while before I felt like I was really waking up. In the last 2 or 3 years, my sleep has changed again. I don't sleep any more or less, but I now go to bed at 9, sleep 1-1/2 or 2 hours, wake up for 2, then go back to sleep for 4-1/2 or 5 hours.

Gooserider

Tue, Feb-01-05, 19:30

I just finished the book, and found it an interesting read, though a bit on the alarmist side. (possibly deservedly so) While it went into great detail about the various medical problems allegedly caused by the lights I felt like it fell down in the solution department.

I would have liked to see a more concentrated 'this is how you solve it' chapter with detailed material, all in one place on how best to implement her findings. Instead while it is in there, the reccomendations seem to be buried in the text and scattered all over the book.

I also didn't find much on the effectiveness of partial solutions - Is sleeping in a lighted area helpful at all? What about a partially darkened, but not 'darkroom grade' area? I have trouble believing that only a totally 'photon free' environment will do. After all our ancestors did not all live in caves all the time, and they survived. Ditto for many of the surviving hunter/gatherer societies.

Even more relevant, what about us low-carb types who may still be doing the 'endless summer light exposure, and possibly a high-ish calorie diet, but are not eating all the processed carbs, etc. that Wiley finds problems with... What effect does that path have? She seems to say that one should sleep a lot and live on a no-carb, low calorie diet in the winter and spring, but then do high natural carbs in the summer and fall. What happens if you don't get the carbs in the summer season?

At any rate, I've started to try implementing some of her ideas. I've put up some heavy curtains on the bedroom windows this afternoon. Daylight is now about like dark used to be, I haven't checked out the nightime effect yet. I'm trying to get more sleep at night (not very successfully, but some...) Will see how it does.

Gooserider

Idioglossi

Tue, Apr-05-05, 17:04

I agree with Duparc. If I go beyond 8 to 8 1/2 hours I get a headache. I don't really see how every single human can be programmed for 9 hours or more.

I like the book though.

This is me.. and I did a sleep test last fall looking for sleep apnea..
which I did not have.. and woke up some 80 x... no wonder I am tired all the time.. and can not take a sleeping pill because my heart rate went to 30.

Living in the tropics the older folkes always went to bed an hour or so after the sun went down and were up at 2 or 3 to go fishing...

I sleep... or sleep and wake etc., then after a few hours, I wake for 2 hours and then fall asleep again and wake at 4:30 am my bedroom has always been pitch dark, due to red wood louvers.

Since childhood I went to bed very early.. my mother also..

TheCaveman

Sat, Apr-23-05, 14:54

I'd be glad to chat it up here, Duparc.

Duparc

Sat, Apr-23-05, 19:24

Go to bed and sleep on it, Caveman!

Iluv2cook

Fri, Oct-28-05, 07:14

Okay. I'm reading the book for the third time. I wanted to go back to the part where she talks about dopamine/addiction. I must have missed that it applied to carbohydrates too. And apparently blinking light screens. So THAT'S why these darn bulletin boards are addictive!

Ya know, what I really like about this book? Her neat complete little theory that the diseases of civilization are just ways to deal with the coming ice age winter.

I also reread the bit about prolactin & autoimmunity. Alarmist- yes?

What I was looking for was a reason for everybody to be complaining of being extra hungry now that fall is here. There must be an explaination somewhere...is it because when the days get shorter we turn on the artificial lights earlier in the evening? hmmm

This book has really captured my attention. But why do we have to do cyclical diet by the seasons? Is there anyway to outsmart this by year round dietary changes?

Duparc

Sat, Nov-05-05, 14:46

While the book was an interesting read I do not, however, subscribe to most of what its authors say. Like others, 7 hours sleep is adequate for me. I certainly do not require more. The only piece of information which, I think, benefitted me was that on darkening one's room. Having said this I can still sleep well in a lit room or even during daylight. I remain unconvinced about the theories expounded by those authors. My style of sleeping differs and I follow the needs of my body and not what others try to tell me.

Interestingly, my wife's sleep-pattern closely resembles that recommended in this book. She needs the minimum of 8 hours undisturbed sleep otherwise she is tetchy for the remainder of the following day.

Zuleikaa

Sat, Nov-05-05, 14:51

AimeeJoi

Sat, Nov-05-05, 18:43

I am reading this book at the moment and though a lot of it is interesting I find the author to be very sensationalistic. He is like "If you don't sleep 9.5 hrs a day YOU WILL DIE" There is no "well you may get sick" It is just "YOU WILL DIE!!!" Because of this tactic I am a little wary of him.

Aimee

Gooserider

Sun, Nov-06-05, 22:14

Agreed, that was my feeling as well. (BTW I believe at least one of the authors is a 'she' - not that it matters for your point, but...)

I have been trying to get more sleep since reading the book, and it may have helped some. However, I tend to do it more by napping rather than going to bed earlier, and I probably don't get as much sleep on average as reccomended by the book. Also while I have gotten the room darker, it isn't blackout conditions by any stretch.

Gooserider

AimeeJoi

Wed, Nov-09-05, 13:11

OK I got a little further through the book and I have to say that I am impressed with the section about depression. I have always felt that depression was cause by a "civilized" lifestyle and Wiley's discourse on the subject fit in well with my thoughts. My boyfriend suffers from "depression," which I think for him is really just not ecstatic happiness at all times of the day and night, and takes Zoloft, which I totally don't think is right. Dr's will pretty much throw this stuff at you. We are told that being tired or not finding pleasure in day to day activities means we are depressed. I think it means we are protesting an unnatural way of life forced on us by society. The chemical imbalance that prescribers of Zoloft and Prozac are talking about is brought on by our unnatural lifestyles. We don't need drugs, we need a break!!
Anyway I am starting to appreciate the book a little more but some things he says still seem like they are only loosely based on fact and research.

Aimee

kallyn

Thu, Nov-17-05, 20:02

Zuleikaa

Fri, Nov-18-05, 07:20

I just checked this book out of the library after reading this thread on it, and I have to say I'm finding it a very hard read. The writing style is very sensationalistic, and, to my mind, annoying. The author also seems to contradict herself constantly and a lot of the information is "touchy feely" kind of stuff at best. I was really hoping for a more scientific approach, but ah well. I may slog through the rest of it.

Now here is the real point of interest for me. Everything you read nowadays about sleep is about how we never get enough of it. I have the exact opposite of this problem, and I can find almost nothing written on the subject of TOO MUCH sleep (except for a few things written about hypersomnia and atypical depression). I sleep at least 10 hours every night, even during the summer. I can't seem to sleep any less than that, and I could certainly sleep longer if I had the freedom to do so (some weekends I sleep for 12 hours and I bet I could do 14 if no one bothered me). According to the authors of this book, I should be in perfect health, but this is not the case. Moreover, I can't even function with less than 10 hours of sleep. If I get less, I'm exhausted all day and have to take a nap. Is this normal or desirable? Anyone have any opinions? (if it helps at all, I've been like this my whole life, not just since I started putting on the pounds in college)Lack of vitamin D. Vitamin D sets circadian rythmns. You live in Seattle. I assume you work full time. Seattle is known for its lack of sun. Vitamin D production only occurs between the hours of 10-3 during late spring-early fall on unsunscreened skin at the latitude of Newport News, VA or further south. To make enough vitamin D from the sun for daily needs an to build a reserve, 85% of the skin should be exposed during that time span.

Given D production requirements I assume you are not meeting them and are, in fact, running a huge deficit. If you're of African, Asian or Northern European descent, the effect worsens. Thus your sleeping habits. I wouldn't be surprised if you had other signs of vitamin D deficiency. As you say you've been like this your whole life, I assume you have SAD to some level, which is also a vitamin D deficiency. Having SAD also interupts normal circadian rhythms, makes you crave carbs, promotes fat storage/weight gain, and raises insulin levels. Do you feel energetic or need less sleep for a brief period during the summer? Do a few days of cloudy weather during the summer saps your energy and mood? Do you have problems staying on plan or staying away from carbs? These are all SAD symptoms and symptoms of vitamin D deficiency. If you have any immune system problems these are vitamin D deficiency related too.

I suggest, JMO, that you get your vitamin D tested and treat the deficiency. Vitamin D is tested using a 25(OH)D serum measurement. Standard lab values are inadequate for assessing status. Rather, use the following values to interpret 25(OH)D test results:
< 20 ng/mL: deficient
< 30 ng/mL: insufficient
40-65 ng/mL: optimal
> 80 ng/mL: excess
Or you can take 1800 mg calcium, 900-1300 mg magnesium and as much high potency vitamin D3 in 1,000 IU capsules as you can stand from 4,000 up to 12,000 IU/day. The range is so wide because only you can tell how much you need to fill the deficit and the deficit must be filled first before you can go on maintenance dose. Otherwise, you will never obtain a healthy level of vitamin D in your blood.

There's an overview of vitamin D in the supplement forum. And more than you ever wanted to know about vitamin D if you click on the link in my sig.

kallyn

Fri, Nov-18-05, 12:16

I've only lived in Seattle for about a month. Prior to that, I was in New Jersey. I just finished up college, and don't have a full time job yet, but I do stay inside most of the day; I can buy that I have a vitamin D deficiency right at this moment.

I don't know if the D thing can explain why I always slept so much as a child though. I was one of those kids that was outside all day from when I got up til when I went to bed, and the less clothing the better. ;) You know the type.

I am of Northern European descent though, and I have very fair skin, so maybe even if I get a lot of sun exposure my body just doesn't produce enough vitamin D? Is that possible? That would be pretty unfortunate. ;(

Zuleikaa

Fri, Nov-18-05, 12:50

I've only lived in Seattle for about a month. Prior to that, I was in New Jersey. I just finished up college, and don't have a full time job yet, but I do stay inside most of the day; I can buy that I have a vitamin D deficiency right at this moment.;( New Jersey is also north of the D fall winter production line.

I don't know if the D thing can explain why I always slept so much as a child though. I was one of those kids that was outside all day from when I got up til when I went to bed, and the less clothing the better. ;) You know the type.

I am of Northern European descent though, and I have very fair skin, so maybe even if I get a lot of sun exposure my body just doesn't produce enough vitamin D? Is that possible? That would be pretty unfortunate. ;(I mentioned Northern Europeans because they have a hereditary genetic inability to make enough vitamin D from the sun. That's also why NEs have higher cancer risk. Those of African descent have the same problem at the other extreme, their dark pigmentation prevents them from making enough.

Meg_S

Wed, Nov-23-05, 08:08

Duparc

Mon, Nov-28-05, 05:22

This thread, which has slipped in, almost unnoticed, to the P & N section, has sure raised a lot of interest. Could this be because it is a controversial subject? For example, as mentioned in an earlier post, 7 hours sleep is my maximum and if ever I oversleep I usually suffer for it.

The suggestion of darkening one's room seems plausible but my experience informs me that it is not necessary in which to reach REM levels. Okay, so in the research done, a light is shone on the leg of the sleeper while in the REM state and it caused the sleeper to come out of the REM level. From this the authors deduced that light interferes with REM sleep, but, could they be wrong? Is this proof of the need for darkness or could it possibly be some other feature? Those like myself who have spent years sleeping in public institution dormitories (hospitals/armed forces, etc) where generally there is a night-light on at all times, were never unduly affected by it.

Furthermore, whenever I retire (usually in the wee sma' hours) I need only to think of the time to awake and I duly awaken then. Often, in my life, when something unexpected has occurred during the night, I have awoken in advance of the occurrence. The obvious questions here are, what part of my psyche (6th sense?) remains vigilant and what actually was it that the researchers were witnessing?

Regarding the darkened room, am I the only one who enjoys awakening to the sunshine pouring through the windows into my bedroom? In mid-summer, in this northern clime, on a cloudless night, it never gets darker than twilight and then only for about an hour yet my sleep is not disturbed. A similar situation arises whenever suffering from jet-lag when sleep, almost under any conditions, refreshes.

While it is recognised that there are those who require longer spells of undisturbed sleep, could this requirement be due to some other cause?

Bat Spit

Mon, Nov-28-05, 09:02

I admit I haven't read the book yet (so many books, so little time!) but I've found the discussion very interesting.

While I certainly agree that the average USerican is sleep deprived, I can't imagine that everyone needs a minimum of 9 hours.

I have the good fortune to work from home keeping my own hours. No kids to wake the household. Allowing my body to keep precisely the sleep schedule it wishes, I need between 7 hours 45 mins, and 8 hours 15 mins, and never more or less than that. And its been exactly the same for most of my life. I'm not actually physically capable of sleeping more except in extrordinary circumstances like illness or something.

Compare this to my husband, who has the same luxury of on-demand sleep, and who needs a minimum of 9 hours, sometimes more.

I don't sleep well past dawn, he sleeps perfectly well until the last hours of the morning. And my inability to sleep past dawn is not affected by an inability to see it. Lovely dark hotel rooms don't make any difference.

So, I think the ideas in the book (as reported in this thread) are interesting, and an interesting first pass at sleep research, I think there is a lot more personal variation in this, as with everything else.

Zuleikaa

Mon, Nov-28-05, 14:53

Do you have any links for that Northern European genetic stuff? I'm pretty interested in reading about it. I had always thought that the more fair you were, the easier it was to get enough on smaller amounts of sun exposure and was feeling pretty safe...but with German, Norway and Scotland in my background I'm not so sure.
I can never refind the exact article when I want. To paraphrase: As peoples moved north there were selections for genetic mutations for lighter skin which allowed for vitamin D synthesis under less strong sun. The further north people moved, the lighter the skin got. However, there came a time and place in the furthest north reaches where sun could not produce vitamin D most of the year even though the people got really, really pale. These peoples ate fish that was rich in vitamin D and so provided for D needs that way. So they survived. The fact that they were getting vitamin D from the sea and not from the sun allowed them to survive their environment with the result that over generations they reduced the number of vitamin D receptors in the skin (probably also due to the continual need for clothing due to the harsher environment). The lost receptors led to the inability to produce enough vitamin D from the sun, and a loss of the ability to tan (related to vitamin D synthesis and sun protection).

Thus lighter skin is a benefit to vitamin D synthesis until it is too light (of Northern European/Scandinavian heritage) at which point vitamin D synthesis is impaired and this impairedness(?) was passed along in the genes to suceeding generations.

This is why Northern European/Scandinavians and Blacks have correlating rates of cancers and high blood pressure. It's also why Scandinavian countries have higher incidences of MS, fibromyalgia, and CFS.

Interestingly, until the 70s, most Scandinavian countries mandated that children and pregnant women be given 2,000 IU/Day of vitamin D. Their rates of Diabetes Type I were much lower. Prenatal vitamin D deficiency has been linked to autism and schizophrenia.

These aren't the exact article I was searching for but give you the gist.
http://www.derm.med.ed.ac.uk/PDF/Am%20J%20Hum%20Genet%20The%20Genetics%20of%20Human%20Pigmentation%202004.pdf
The Genetics of Sun Sensitivity in Humans
Jonathan L. Rees
Systems Group, Dermatology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh

http://www.fao.org/docrep/W7336T/w7336t03.htm
The roles of calcium and vitamin D in skeletal health: an evolutionary perspective

http://www.derm.med.ed.ac.uk/PDF/Genetics%20of%20Hair%20and%20Skin%20Colour.pdf
GENETICS OF HAIR AND SKIN COLOR
Jonathan L. Rees
Systems Group, Dermatology, University of Edinburgh, Lauriston Buildings, Lauriston
Place, Edinburgh, EH3 9YW, United Kingdom; email: jrees~staffmail.ed.ac.uk

TheCaveman

Mon, Nov-28-05, 22:42

The suggestion of darkening one's room seems plausible but my experience informs me that it is not necessary in which to reach REM levels. Okay, so in the research done, a light is shone on the leg of the sleeper while in the REM state and it caused the sleeper to come out of the REM level. From this the authors deduced that light interferes with REM sleep, but, could they be wrong?

It wasn't about REM sleep, it was about suppression of melatonin. There's no argument that nighttime suppression of melatonin is a bad thing.

There is, however, argument over light and suppression of melatonin. How much? At what time? What color? What part of the body? What time of the year? For how long? If you don't have enough to do, check out the raft of work that has been done since the original study: Here's a start. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=10553954)

As you can see, there's still no consensus, but even a brief look at the literature makes you want to block out the windows and be done with it.

Also, the work of Tom Wehr inspires me: Here. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&term=%22Wehr+TA%22%5BAuthor%5D)

The definition of "enough sleep" needs to be "enough time for the nighttime endocrine cycle to complete". Until we spend a week in a sleep lab spitting into test tubes, having blood drawn on the hour, with a rectal thermometer recording our temperature in hundredth-of-a-degree increments, helping us find out Our Own Personal Sleep Need, I think it's best to take the advice that--barring a serious sleep disorder--human nighttime endocrine cycle is not variable.

Gooserider

Mon, Nov-28-05, 23:31

Just as more antecdotal evidence of sleep variance, I find my sleep requirements vary a great deal. I can 'get by' and remain functional for several days on 2-4 hours / night, but it does cause me to get grouchy and perhaps less mentally competent. However a nap of any length, but preferably an hour or longer will get me going again. I've also been known to nod off (not always intentionally) at moments when my attention is not actively required. I've even done this at live rock concerts, close to the stage... More regretably I used to do it frequently at work during meetings when my participation wasn't actively required...

Fortuneately, if I have an activity that does require my attention (such as driving) then I don't have trouble staying awake as needed.

This does act like sleep deprivation, but I'm not sure - I find that it is difficult for me to go to bed much before midnight, and if I do, I don't sleep.

OTOH, when I'm not required to get up in the morning, I can easily go for 8-10 hours (possibly with a 'hydraulic relief' break in the middle) or longer.

I prefer a dark space to sleep, but it isn't essential - again I have found that I can, and do, sleep under almost any lighting condition.
Even coffee or other caffeine source (the 100% pure, natural, organic, substitute for sleep) won't keep me awake if I feel like sleeping, but I do try to avoid it late in the day.

My beloved, on the other hand becomes non-functional if she doesn't get at least 6 hours / night, preferably 7-8. However a light doesn't bother her, indeed she usually goes to bed leaving a light and the radio on. I come in later and turn them both off.... It works.

Gooserider

Gooserider

PaleoDeano

Fri, Jan-13-06, 01:40

It's not just with people... read this article...

Raising chickens indoors under constant light depresses their immune systems

Most of our commercial broilers are raised indoors in crowded sheds with the lights left on 23 hours a day. The constant lighting speeds their growth, getting them to market a few days earlier. But the unnatural light also depresses their immune system by suppressing their production of the immune-boosting hormone, melatonin. A new study reveals that birds with low levels of melatonin are more vulnerable to disease. The response of the poultry industry is to dose the beleaguered birds with more vaccines and antibiotics.

Monique723

Fri, Jan-13-06, 07:17

This is outside the norm. I was sleeping like this 7 years ago, then I had a sleep study done. Turns out I have a sleep disorder, sleep apnea. I was always tired, sleepy during the day even with 12 hours of sleep. I am now on CPAP, and feel so much better. Have you had a sleep study, or talked to a physician about this? Without treatment, untreated sleep apnea could lead to heart conditions or stroke, etc.

Turns out I also have an underactive thyroid, which was recently diagnosed. Both conditions are related (some people that have sleep apnea have hypothyroidism).

Now here is the real point of interest for me. Everything you read nowadays about sleep is about how we never get enough of it. I have the exact opposite of this problem, and I can find almost nothing written on the subject of TOO MUCH sleep (except for a few things written about hypersomnia and atypical depression). I sleep at least 10 hours every night, even during the summer. I can't seem to sleep any less than that, and I could certainly sleep longer if I had the freedom to do so (some weekends I sleep for 12 hours and I bet I could do 14 if no one bothered me). According to the authors of this book, I should be in perfect health, but this is not the case. Moreover, I can't even function with less than 10 hours of sleep. If I get less, I'm exhausted all day and have to take a nap. Is this normal or desirable? Anyone have any opinions? (if it helps at all, I've been like this my whole life, not just since I started putting on the pounds in college)

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-13-06, 09:44

I'd definitely suspect thyroid, the other thought is narcolepsy.

kallyn

Fri, Jan-13-06, 14:37

I'd definitely suspect thyroid, the other thought is narcolepsy.

Funny you should say that. I came to the narcolepsy conclusion awhile ago (all of my symptoms match up), but everyone else thinks I'm nuts. "Narcolepsy" sounds like such a 19th-century disease!

I'm skeptical about the sleep tests. It seems to me that if you were in such weird conditions (a lab type setting, hooked up with all sorts of wires, not in your own bed, etc) that you would not sleep normally.

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-13-06, 14:41

Kallyn, have you ever had your thyroid tested? I know when my friends have had sleep tests done it was in their home. I agree though, it does seem like it'd be about impossible to fall asleep inside a lab.

kallyn

Fri, Jan-13-06, 14:45

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-13-06, 14:47

It is possible to have underactive thyroid from birth, but that usually involves a lot of problems like lower IQ and stuff. I agree, its more likely something else.

Duparc

Sat, Jan-28-06, 08:23

PaleoDeano

Sat, Jan-28-06, 08:39

PD that's an interesting observation of the broilers but, what's more fascinating is that in almost all public institutions where there is a number sleeping in the one space, large hospital wards being the obvious example, there is always a nightlight and the irony is that this is where patients require a sound immune system for recovery purposes. The reason probably revolves around expediency, like what's more important; the nurses being able to see the patients or the patients' recovery? Another consideration could be, does the hospital exist for the benefit of the staff or the patients?Duparc, IMHO, "the reason probably revolves around" the hospital (being an extension of the modern "health care" system) having no interest in implementing anything as radical as what is suggested in this book. They know the drug companies will keep them fat and happy. They will use this as their one and only modality to treat the symptoms of diseases caused by our modern "civilization". The profits are enormous. Let's not bury our heads any deeper in the sand!

Monique723

Tue, Feb-07-06, 11:25

I had a bit of a heart issue about 2 years ago, and they ran all sorts of tests. At that time, according to the work I got done, my thyroid was well within the normal range.

Also, like I said, I've had this sleep problem since I was a baby. (apparently I always slept through the night and it was really hard to wake me up)

I guess these things don't completely rule out subclinical thyroid problems, but they make me suspect narcolepsy instead.

EDIT: case in point, last night I slept from 11:45PM to 11:30AM, with a brief 30-min period of waking in which I drove my fiance to work. ;(

I don't see how it can be narcolepsy, are you falling asleep during the day while wide awake?

As far as thyroid, the ranges have changed in the last few years. It used to be anything over a TSH of 5 was abnormal. The AACE changed the range to anything over 2 as abnormal.

It is also possible to have a normal TSH and still have hypothyroidism. Its based on your symptoms, not a lab number.

kallyn

Tue, Feb-07-06, 13:36

I don't see how it can be narcolepsy, are you falling asleep during the day while wide awake?

I've done a lot of reading on narcolepsy. While randomly falling asleep during the day for no reason is the narcolepsy stereotype, it's not a symptom of everyone that has it.

The 4 major symptoms are:
excessive daytime sleepiness
temporary loss of muscle control while fully conscious, called cataplexy
vivid dream-like images when drifting off to sleep or waking up, called hypnagogic hallucination
sleep paralysis, where upon waking all your muscles are paralyzed and you can't move for a brief period of time

There are also other indicators of narcolepsy, such as going into REM sleep 5 minutes after you fall asleep (in normal people it takes 90 minutes to go into REM). This is usually one of the tests they use in sleep centers to diagnose narcolepsy because it's measurable (unlike the arbitrary "I feel tired").

Not every narcoleptic has every symptom, or to the same degree. I have daytime sleepiness (no matter how much sleep I get, if you give me 5 minutes of nothing to do I will fall asleep again...that was fun in college trying to pay attention to lectures ;P), hypnagogic hallucination, and the REM thing (I haven't been tested, but I know that I have dreams during a 15-minute nap). Once I had sleep paralysis, but it hasn't occured again.

I've never had any degree of cataplexy, thank goodness. That's the dangerous one, where if you get excited or mad or something your muscles just all stop working and you collapse; you can die if you're walking down stairs or driving a car.

Wyvrn

Tue, Feb-07-06, 14:27

PaleoDeano

Tue, Feb-07-06, 15:16

Wyv, you can do self-hypnosis, which is very easy... that will relax you totally and give you a real good "buzz" to boot! ;)

I think I have had all of these symptoms that kallyn describes (except cataplexy, thank god here to!). But, these were all when I was on the SAD super sugar diet for self-medicating depression, et. al.! :lol:

It IS possible that sleep disorders exist, but there are also possible problems created by our "wonderful world of white" (sugar, flour, EVERYTHING!).

TwilightZ

Wed, Feb-15-06, 15:06

I've had sleep paralysis happen a few times as I was waking up, a couple of times with the most amazing OOB/lucid dream experiences and others just a feeling of deep relaxation in a semi-trance feeling the "buzz". I wish I knew how to induce it.

Wyv

Yes, I've had those same experiences. They mostly occur when I'm sleeping later than usual into the morning.

TwilightZ

Wed, Feb-15-06, 15:10

and the REM thing (I haven't been tested, but I know that I have dreams during a 15-minute nap).

I always dream vividly as soon as I nod off during the day, even for 5 minutes. I know I'm not narcoleptic. Is dreaming absolute proof of REM sleep?

Howard

Wyvrn

Fri, Feb-17-06, 15:08

Yes, I've had those same experiences. They mostly occur when I'm sleeping later than usual into the morning.Same here. It's very pleasant. I've heard of people having the same thing happen when falling asleep at night, and sometimes that is terrifying for them. That's never happened to me.

Dean - I've explored a variety of altered states using various means of induction (these days I find Harner method shamanic journeying useful), but sleep paralysis is unlike anything else I've experienced. When I do a journey I am in touch with both my physical and non-ordinary surroundings and can physically enact certain things that are happening in the journey, but my ego presence is minimal. In sleep paralysis there seems to be more ego or at least more rational capacity but the body is very remote. Meditation as I know it is more about completely banishing the ego and "blissing out". Useful in division meetings but not so much otherwise. ;)

Wyv

Nancy LC

Fri, Feb-17-06, 15:11

I always dream vividly as soon as I nod off during the day, even for 5 minutes. I know I'm not narcoleptic. Is dreaming absolute proof of REM sleep?

Howard

I don't know. I always get "jumbled" thoughts. I suppose it is a sleep stage where I'm very lightly asleep but still sort of thinking, but the thought get a little twisted and odd. I had a friend once that would announce his odd thoughts as he was falling asleep. It was quite funny.

Dodger

Fri, Feb-17-06, 15:32

If you've dropped the bad brown acid, report immediately to the medical tent, man

PaleoDeano

Fri, Feb-17-06, 23:00

And if you've dropped the good green windowpane, please report to my tent now! ;)

kallyn

Fri, Feb-17-06, 23:13

I don't think the dreaming all by itself is absolute proof of narcolepsy, but in conjunction with several other symptoms it's a good empirical indicator.

TheCaveman

Sun, Feb-19-06, 09:51

I always get "jumbled" thoughts. I suppose it is a sleep stage where I'm very lightly asleep but still sort of thinking, but the thought get a little twisted and odd.

Happens to me all the time. I get to take credit as having the best sleep on the boards, I guess, and no matter how tired I am, it always takes me about a half hour to get to sleep at night. And the thoughts running through my mind right before I doze off are WEIRD. I'd give some examples, but they're the kind of thoughts/dreams that you forget almost immediately afterward. All I remember is that it was weird.

Before I started eating well, I used to sing in my sleep. Not that I was firing off opera classics from under the covers, but I was dreaming that I was singing or something, and would sort of growl/hum in my sleep.

Now, every couple of months I will wake up in the middle of the night laughing, and I mean tears-rolling-down-my-cheeks laughing, and I have NO idea what I'm laughing about.

I think sleep is fantastic for health. This may, however, just be a subconscious rationalization, because truthfully, I seem to have much more fun while I'm alseep than when I'm awake.

Nancy LC

Sun, Feb-19-06, 10:17

I love those "laugh-in-your-sleep" dreams. :D

PaleoDeano

Sun, Feb-19-06, 14:27

I love those "laugh-in-your-sleep" dreams. :DAnd what color are you guys dropping?! :dazzle: :lol:

Paris

Mon, Feb-20-06, 11:02

After seeing that this is one of the longest threads in the forum, I checked out the book yesterday and just made it through the introduction. So far I am loving it! :lol: Wiley makes a lot of sense, I wish more people made these connections.

PaleoDeano

Mon, Feb-20-06, 13:01

After seeing that this is one of the longest threads in the forumIt actually IS the longest thread in the Paleo forum!... by far! There... I just made it a little longer! ;)

Enjoy the book... it is a good read!

PaleoDeano

Wed, Feb-22-06, 18:47

Well... to actually contribute something legitimate to extend the length of this "longest thread on the paleo forum"...

I was wondering if anyone thought about how in the (possibly near) future, when electric prices go through the stratosphere, there will be a huge change in all the lights (and business/activity) that currently run 24/7? I wonder if then we will begin to see less cancer and other diseases (including, of course, obesity). I do think we will end up "eating in season", since we won't be able to afford the "thousand mile caesar salad". We will also be eating grass-fed animals and lots of locally grown veggies, since grains are totally tied to modern big-ag (read petroleum based) farming practices.

What do others think of this? In her book, Wiley points out the fact that back before the widespread use of the lightbulb, people slept around 10 hours a night. I have a feeling we will all be sleeping a lot more, since we won't have the energy to do all these all-nighters anymore!

Zuleikaa

Thu, Feb-23-06, 06:33

I think it won't happen in our next few lifetimes and probably never. People want modern life and technology will advance to ensure it.

Nancy LC

Thu, Feb-23-06, 11:30

Probably the pregnancy rate would sky rocket. :D

TwilightZ

Thu, Feb-23-06, 13:00

I was wondering if anyone thought about how in the (possibly near) future, when electric prices go through the stratosphere, there will be a huge change in all the lights (and business/activity) that currently run 24/7? I wonder if then we will begin to see less cancer and other diseases (including, of course, obesity). I do think we will end up "eating in season", since we won't be able to afford the "thousand mile caesar salad". We will also be eating grass-fed animals and lots of locally grown veggies, since grains are totally tied to modern big-ag (read petroleum based) farming practices.

I agree 100% with Zuleikaa. Deano, that's a fantasy world. If the prices went higher than people could afford, those energy producers would be out of business as would everyone involved in technology. No, the market will keep things in check and technology will advance.

TheCaveman

Thu, Feb-23-06, 14:47

I agree 100% with Zuleikaa. Deano, that's a fantasy world. If the prices went higher than people could afford, those energy producers would be out of business as would everyone involved in technology. No, the market will keep things in check and technology will advance.

I agree 100 percent with Deeno. Zuleikaa, that's a a fantasy world. When the prices go higher than people can afford, those energy producers will be out of business as will everyone involved in technology. No, the market is not equiped to keep things in check and technology will come to a grinding halt.

And that ain't the half of it. Put your dancing shoes on, folks.

Zuleikaa

Thu, Feb-23-06, 14:51

I agree 100 percent with Deeno. Zuleikaa, that's a a fantasy world. When the prices go higher than people can afford, those energy producers will be out of business as will everyone involved in technology. No, the market is not equiped to keep things in check and technology will come to a grinding halt.

And that ain't the half of it. Put your dancing shoes on, folks.No they'll mass produce alternative fuels (which was also and always been available since the '60s just suppressed and frozen out), jack that price up and keep on keeping on.

TheCaveman

Thu, Feb-23-06, 15:09

No they'll mass produce alternative fuels (which was also and always been available since the '60s just suppressed and frozen out), jack that price up and keep on keeping on.

Any suggestions on what those alternative fuels might be?

Zuleikaa

Thu, Feb-23-06, 16:58

Sun, wind, and water for electricity generation. For biofuels, corn, sugar, and soy bean fuel for starters. There are a few countries already using biofuels, India, Brazil, China, and Australia. Even the US uses some. Too, there are some generators running on dung.

There are still untapped oil reserves and the development of biofuels will replace a lot of motor fuel while conserving oil for the petrolium based plastics and electronics that we covet and must have.

PaleoDeano

Thu, Feb-23-06, 17:07

I think it won't happen in our next few lifetimes and probably never. People want modern life and technology will advance to ensure it. No they'll mass produce alternative fuels (which was also and always been available since the '60s just suppressed and frozen out), jack that price up and keep on keeping on.If the prices went higher than people could afford, those energy producers would be out of business as would everyone involved in technology. No, the market will keep things in check and technology will advance.Oh… how I wish the natural world worked this way! We will "never" run out of resources… and if "people (simply) want modern life (then) technology will advance to ensure it." They'll just "mass produce alternative fuels (available since the 60s!)" Wow! Talk about a "fantasy world"! I would LOVE to live in such a "fantasy world"… please, oh please tell me how to get to this "fantasy world"! What rabbit hole do I need to go down? Somewhere where "the market will keep things in check and technology will advance"…

First of all, if there were such alternative fuels, I think someone would know about them, and they would be talking about them… I haven't even heard of their (possible) existence yet. Until now. Please let me know where I can read more about these things? And don't tell me about hydrogen or using ethanol. Ethanol (and all other bio-fuels) are net energy losers… they require more energy to grow and process than they produce in the end, and the energy "inputs" required to do this are none other than oil and natural gas, the same fuels they are trying to replace. The electricity which produces hydrogen has to come from somewhere. To fill all the cars in the US would require four times the current capacity of the national grid! And where is this electricity going to come from? Coal burning is filthy, nuclear energy is expensive and lethal. I hope you guys are connected to some aliens that are going to come to our rescue… cuz barring that, I think we better start re-organizing our way of life, instead of watching it all go to a fiery hell! JMHO.

.....perhaps you guys should google "peak oil" and do some reading.....

kallyn

Thu, Feb-23-06, 18:04

I think that much more than energy crises, we should worry about water shortages. Even though most modern societies depend on energy, people can and do live without it. No on can live without water.

The water situation is beginning to look grim. Just a brief search on global water shortage comes up with tons of stuff:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-26-water-usat_x.htm
http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/dec99/Feature2.htm
http://whyfiles.org/131fresh_water/
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P102152.asp
http://www.worldhungeryear.org/why_speaks/ws_load.asp?file=13&style=ws_table
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/kassas.html
http://www.cela.ca/faq/cltn_detail.shtml?x=1508

Besides just plain old using up water faster than it's being replaced, there are climate changes helping the problem along. One of these is a widespread desertification:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/
http://www.unccd.int/

Last summer I spend 5 weeks in Montana at a geology field camp, working with some very very smart professors who work in geological sciences. From the work they do, they all seem to think that water shortage will be a huge issue, and one that not many people right now are aware of.

PaleoDeano

Thu, Feb-23-06, 18:36

Well... water shortages should really be no concern... we can always drink coca-cola! We will never run out of that! :lol:

It's so nice down here in this rabbit hole!

PaleoDeano

Thu, Feb-23-06, 18:52

Actually... and this is REALLY SAD... but, with the way things are going, I don't think there will be all these people left in fifty years to need all this water (that won't be there). See what happens when you wanna "settle down"... (like we all did 10,000 years ago). It has been said, that was "the worst mistake we ever made".

CharlyA

Fri, Feb-24-06, 08:41

Eating is our primary relationship.

No matter what else we are doing, who else or what else we are having relationship with, eating...food....the earth...is our primary relationship.

Technology will not save us. Technology harms us. Technology is NOT neutral.

Civilization and agriculture lead to domestication, sedentism (sedentary), surplus, storage, private ownership, hierarchy, commodifying land and lives, governments, patriarchy and worst of all it enslaves us, our essence is caged. We must rewild ourselves.

Civilization is a leviathan that traps us into the population conundrum....everything is on the wrong scale because nothing we can choose right now will support the current level of population, NOTHING.

PaleoDeano

Fri, Feb-24-06, 10:41

nothing we can choose right now will support the current level of population, NOTHING.Well put. During the "oil age" (just the last 150 years) the world’s population shot up from around 1 billion to nearly 7 billion. This is THE problem! Cheap, abundant energy used in a hierarchical fashion has doomed us (not the planet really, cuz it will survive us, even if it takes a few hundred million years - depending on how much further we destroy it). Life will win in the end... the only question for us is, will we be smart enough to be included. This is really the theme of this book "Lights Out". I love the way Wiley just blatantly points out that nature will "take us out" if we don't play by her rules. So very true! We have become so species-centric that we can't see the bigger picture (the real picture). The earth isn't flat, and we are not at the center of anything - except our own self extinction.

TwilightZ

Fri, Feb-24-06, 14:17

Technology will not save us. Technology harms us. Technology is NOT neutral.

If it had not been for technology, we would not know about our hunter-gatherer ancestors who preceded the agricultural period. If that technology had been available 10,000 years ago, perhaps we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves today.[/QUOTE]

PaleoDeano

Fri, Feb-24-06, 18:02

If it had not been for technology, we would not know about our hunter-gatherer ancestors who preceded the agricultural period. If that technology had been available 10,000 years ago, perhaps we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves today.Do you mean "Hindsight Is 20/20"?... or is this just a "Catch 22"? I mean if we didn't have the agricultural period, we wouldn't have the technology to show us just how good the good life really was before the agricultural period? Perhaps we would be better off without the rear-view mirror?

I hope I didn't trip on anyone's circular logic there. ;)

Naked with a sharp stick... now that is some technology we could live with! :lol:

TheCaveman

Sat, Feb-25-06, 08:09

If it had not been for technology, we would not know about our hunter-gatherer ancestors who preceded the agricultural period. If that technology had been available 10,000 years ago, perhaps we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves today.

If it had not been for technology, we would STILL BE our hunter-gatherer ancestors who preceded the agricultural period. If that technology had NOT been available 10,000 years ago, perhaps we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves today.

PlaneCrazy

Sun, Feb-26-06, 13:11

...Wiley points out the fact that back before the widespread use of the lightbulb, people slept around 10 hours a night. ...

Unless, of course, they had small babies. :)

It's amazing how you can actually function on only four or five hours of sleep for weeks and weeks on end. I wonder if the body compensates somehow when you have a baby. (both mother and father)

I'm one of those people who doesn't believe that we'll lose all of the energy and the infrastructure that results in the ten-thousand-mile ceaser salad. (It will be majorly disrupted for a time during the big flu epidemic, but it will resume) Part of my job is to look at the trends in technology and see what the very smartest people are saying is coming and compare that with my own observations. What I see happening is, as always, a double-edged sword. But it's a pretty massively powerful sword.

In the next 10-15 years we will have a much better understanding of how our body functions and how we need to adapt each individual's lifestyle to their own body chemistry. Conservatively, in less than five years from now, you'll be able to buy a machine that fits on a desk, costs less than $2000 and will be able to sequence your genome in under an hour. For those not familiar with genetic sequencing, that is a huge jump in cost (downward), size and speed for genetic sequencing. Why will we care?

Because along with this advance in genetic sequencing is a concurrent advance in our understanding of what that means, of our ability to decode that genetic sequence. By the time my baby graduates from high school, part of a regular doctor's visit will be a scan both of your genetics, but also of the hormone and other chemical levels in your body. This will allow for a regular tweaking of your body profile and help you maximize what your particular body needs.

Twenty-five years from now we'll begin to have cell-sized diagnostic tools that we ingest that tell us how well we're working from the inside out. They will also develop these helpful guys to clean us out of toxins, both artificial and those our body makes as part of the aging process, damaged genetic material and damaged protein strings that lead to other kinds of diseases.

Thirty to fourty years from now, we may not even have to eat because we will be able to use these artificial cells to deliver the proper amount of the right nutrients directly to our cells using basic molecular raw material. You will able to eat whatever you want, and whatever you need is taken from this material, excess is packaged and discarded and gaps are made up for in a regular supliment. There's also the possibility of massively more efficient artificial red blood cells that would make our metabolism so efficient that you could go without breathing for an hour. (snorkling anyone?) Or artificial white blood cells that can take intelligently search and destroy the bad guys, including reprogramming the genetic material of a cell to turn it off (like cancer cells) or reprogram a cell that has gotten old to tell it to keep on reproducing when natural aging would have it become less able to reproduce.

The bottom line is that as we learn more about just how our systems work best, we will learn that not everyone fits into a one-size-fits-all prescription. And we will be able to use technology to fine tune the individual's needs and have better and better ways of delivering these needs and taking care of our physical bodies.

I started out a skeptic, but with a great deal of research, I'm convinced that the odds are quite good that my nine-month-old son will, if he chooses, never have to die. How's that for a question never broached in parenting books? How do you raise a child who will be immortal?

If I'm lucky, and keep good care of myself, I may be able to benefit from these advances as well and make the cut off. (I'm only 42 now) The trick is to not be too unhealthy as the advances occur so that you're not too far gone to benefit.

Eat well, live smart and keep your eyes out, this will be a very interesting next 50 years.

Plane

PaleoDeano

Sun, Feb-26-06, 14:36

On a more positive note... check this (http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=vn20060211110132138C184427) out. Although, I think transportation is in for a real change, and hence, communities are going to have to adapt to more local activities for a while. I don't know what will come out of all these changes, but, hopefully we can at least get away from using fossil fuels and destroying this planet (and all the other species on it!)... and get our own population (http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html) in check!

CharlyA

Sun, Feb-26-06, 16:15

Unless, of course, they had small babies. :)

It's amazing how you can actually function on only four or five hours of sleep for weeks and weeks on end. I wonder if the body compensates somehow when you have a baby. (both mother and father)

I'm one of those people who doesn't believe that we'll lose all of the energy and the infrastructure that results in the ten-thousand-mile ceaser salad. (It will be majorly disrupted for a time during the big flu epidemic, but it will resume) Part of my job is to look at the trends in technology and see what the very smartest people are saying is coming and compare that with my own observations. What I see happening is, as always, a double-edged sword. But it's a pretty massively powerful sword.

In the next 10-15 years we will have a much better understanding of how our body functions and how we need to adapt each individual's lifestyle to their own body chemistry. Conservatively, in less than five years from now, you'll be able to buy a machine that fits on a desk, costs less than $2000 and will be able to sequence your genome in under an hour. For those not familiar with genetic sequencing, that is a huge jump in cost (downward), size and speed for genetic sequencing. Why will we care?

Because along with this advance in genetic sequencing is a concurrent advance in our understanding of what that means, of our ability to decode that genetic sequence. By the time my baby graduates from high school, part of a regular doctor's visit will be a scan both of your genetics, but also of the hormone and other chemical levels in your body. This will allow for a regular tweaking of your body profile and help you maximize what your particular body needs.

Twenty-five years from now we'll begin to have cell-sized diagnostic tools that we ingest that tell us how well we're working from the inside out. They will also develop these helpful guys to clean us out of toxins, both artificial and those our body makes as part of the aging process, damaged genetic material and damaged protein strings that lead to other kinds of diseases.

Thirty to fourty years from now, we may not even have to eat because we will be able to use these artificial cells to deliver the proper amount of the right nutrients directly to our cells using basic molecular raw material. You will able to eat whatever you want, and whatever you need is taken from this material, excess is packaged and discarded and gaps are made up for in a regular supliment. There's also the possibility of massively more efficient artificial red blood cells that would make our metabolism so efficient that you could go without breathing for an hour. (snorkling anyone?) Or artificial white blood cells that can take intelligently search and destroy the bad guys, including reprogramming the genetic material of a cell to turn it off (like cancer cells) or reprogram a cell that has gotten old to tell it to keep on reproducing when natural aging would have it become less able to reproduce.

The bottom line is that as we learn more about just how our systems work best, we will learn that not everyone fits into a one-size-fits-all prescription. And we will be able to use technology to fine tune the individual's needs and have better and better ways of delivering these needs and taking care of our physical bodies.

I started out a skeptic, but with a great deal of research, I'm convinced that the odds are quite good that my nine-month-old son will, if he chooses, never have to die. How's that for a question never broached in parenting books? How do you raise a child who will be immortal?

If I'm lucky, and keep good care of myself, I may be able to benefit from these advances as well and make the cut off. (I'm only 42 now) The trick is to not be too unhealthy as the advances occur so that you're not too far gone to benefit.

Eat well, live smart and keep your eyes out, this will be a very interesting next 50 years.

Plane

Thanks for the real life nightmare of technophilia.

Honestly, what you wrote disgusts me.

PlaneCrazy

Sun, Feb-26-06, 22:19

I'm sorry it disgusts you, because I'm afraid you're going to be more and more disgusted. I didn't even go into the merging of biological and non-biological intelligence.

The future's coming and there's not much any of us can do about it but adapt.

The bright side is that upcoming nanotechnology is making solar and other clean sources of energy cheaper and much more efficient. It will also help us clean toxic pollutions from the environment. There's good and there's bad, just as every technical innovation in the history of humanity. If we were still living like our ancient paleolithic ancestors our lives would be full of accident and a minor infection was mostly a death sentence. Many more women would die in childbirth, and minor childhood diseases would kill off most children.

Tribal life in not all it's cracked up to be, either. Just some thoughts. Perhaps heresy on this forum, but I don't make the reality, I just live in it.

Plane Crazy

TheCaveman

Sun, Feb-26-06, 22:50

How are we going to do all of this fantastic/horrible stuff without electricity?

If we were still living like our ancient paleolithic ancestors our lives would be full of accident and a minor infection was mostly a death sentence. Many more women would die in childbirth, and minor childhood diseases would kill off most children.

Tribal life in not all it's cracked up to be, either.

If your Reader's Digest vision of the future wasn't sad enough, you wrap up with an even larger delusional tableau of our past. How is it that Homo flurished for millions of years under the conditions that you paint for us? What do you think an evolutionary biologist would say to your guesswork about the past of our species?

Tribal life is not all it's cracked up to be. It is, however, the only way humans fit within the biological reality of this planet. Saying that people shouldn't live in tribes is like saying that birds shouldn't live in flocks.

PlaneCrazy

Tue, Feb-28-06, 07:23

Sorry, I was being a little more flippant than I should have. This is a serious subject and perhaps this is not really the place to go into it in detail, but I'll address a few things.

When I tossed off the quote that tribal life is not all that it's cracked up to be, what I meant is that living a paleolithic life was not something I'd like to go back to. There were some good things, but a whole lot of bad as well. One of the most significant characteristics of small, tribal groups is the razor-thin margins you live with.

One bad season and you could have malnutrition. One bad year and you jettison the old, sick, very young and weak either through death, disease or abandonment.

Even what we would consider common and entirely treatable problems could get you into a lot of trouble. Sure, with a better diet there's less of the lifestyle diseases like heart attacks and diabetes, but accidental injury, broken bones, infections, food-born and water-born diseases could all be fatal.

Childbirth and childhood are risky times. So much can go wrong. The strategy of hunting and gathering tribal societies, and even ours as well up until very recently, is to have lots of kids. Eventually, some will survive. You may end up with three or four kids who live to adulthood and reproduction. That's enough for survival of the species, but you may well have had eight kids to begin with. Even with the wonders of modern medicine we still lose mothers and children. I would not have a child now except for these very same wonders. Even just 20 years ago he would not have survived. 100 years ago I would have lost both him and his mother. Now I have a healthy baby boy and a healthy wife.

The world is not a naturally nice place. Hominids were able to survive and thrive not because of some great natural strength or speed, but because of our intelligence. Our intelligence and ability to model and change and adapt to our natural environment seems to have been the driving force for our evolution for quite a while now. It's just that I'm not completely ready to throw out all of the last 10,000 years of that evolution.

Look, I see, and agree with much of what I read and observe about the benefits of eating like we ate while our physical evolution developed. I just don't think I'm willing to chuck it all and live like my ancestors did 10-12,000 years ago. (actually, some of my ancestors were still wandering nomadic hearders some 2500 years ago)

I think where the disagreement in our perspectives may come from is definition of the problem. I believe the problem is that we don't know enough, about how our body really works, about how we can get the most out of what we have both physically and mentally. Others, and I'm not saying this is you, I'll obviously let you speak for yourself, may feel that we have forgotten the real knowledge, how to live "naturally" in this world.

The world is the same, but the approach is different. I think that if we know more, we can use our intelligence to live well, we just don't know enough yet. Others think that we need to forget and return to some time in the past where some think we were all better off. Reality is, that won't be happening.

The genie is out of the bottle, we can either progress towards a future where we understand our environment and our selves better, and strive towards goals of harmonious existence, or we continue on our path of ignorant destruction of our environment and poisoning of our selves. Regardless of what we may want, technology is progressing. Even if someone is somehow able to move back to the savannah, they will not escape for long. It's still a running away.

I will be the first to admit that technology has brough death and destruction along with the benefits. Like all of our human inventions from fire onwards, with power comes responsibility, with every extension of our abilities comes the possiblity of abuse. The answer to this, I believe, is to be vigilant and careful because there is no going back.

My 2-cents. I don't want to hijack this thread, so we can stop here or you can respond but I won't keep up this side-track. Sorry I caused the kerfuffle (sp?) :)

Plane

Duparc

Tue, Feb-28-06, 08:01

A lovely and optimistic peace of mind-thought PlaneCrazy and I have little doubt that much of your prediction will manifest itself and possibly within the foreseeable future (for some).

I doubt if survival is due solely or mainly to our intelligence and I do accept that adaptation comes across strongly but, there is a feature that is almost unnoticeable yet is evident in human kind and may not exist in other species; it is the phenomenon of each generation having to re-invent itself. We see this evidence in the young who perpetually reject the values of their parents and earlier generations and it is this regeneration of thought precesses that seems to push humanity towards some yet unknown future.

I readily accept that we may wish to live longer but in that same desire will exist the seeds of destruction.

I enjoyed your postings; quite refreshing to have something to agitate the grey-matter.

PlaneCrazy

Tue, Feb-28-06, 10:47

the phenomenon of each generation having to re-invent itself. We see this evidence in the young who perpetually reject the values of their parents and earlier generations and it is this regeneration of thought precesses that seems to push humanity towards some yet unknown future.

An interesting point. It seems to be in our nature to not just accept the status quo but to go through a period of questioning and more-or-less rebellion. I doubt you could find an example of any society that stays exactly the same, but some may have more limited resources, or more limited tools with which to make change and so the changes come slowly and are more subtle. These tend to be what we view as more "traditional" societies. Change doesn't happen quickly, and to the outside observer may seems to not happen at all. But, as we gain more powerful tools, we increase our abilities to change our world, and thus our society in greater ways.

But all of this points to our innate human desire to explore the boundaries of our world and our recognition of our own ability to change our world. This, to me, is what really seperates us from almost all other animals, and is the primary driver to our evolution.

Sure, other animals adapt to changing environments, but there are few, if any, who actively bring on that change themselves. For a while now, we've known that humans are not the only tool makers. But, we are the only ones who continually try and make the tools better, even when the ones we have are sufficient. When chimps strip the leaves off of a twig and use it to fish in termite mounds (the classic observation), once they find a way that works, they stick with it. Humans, on the other hand, once they discovered how to purposely chip rocks to create a sharp edge, continuously worked to improve that edge and were able to effectively pass the accumulated knowledge from generation to generation. This striving for a better way to model and change our world, and the ability to communicate the results of our intelligence work is what has allowed us to become more efficient hunters and thus able to support larger populations. These larger populations caused us to develop more effcient means of social organization. These larger populations allowed some to actually specialize in craftsman roles, like tool-maker, which allowed the development to happen even faster. This observation is born our in the fossil record. We find hominid evolution begins to happen at a faster rate once we become tool makers. Once we become proficient at tools, and some think the ability to communicate our knowledge, our evolution begins to exhibit itself in other ways and our physical evolution essentially stops. That's the point that this forum takes as the last step in evolutionary development from a dietary point of view.

The result is also that we can't stop change. If we weren't so darned curious about ways to do and make things better, faster, cheaper, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in, nor would we be human.

Plane

CharlyA

Tue, Feb-28-06, 12:25

If we weren't so darned curious about ways to do and make things better, faster, cheaper, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in, nor would we be human.

Plane

Let me get this straight...

so

To be human, we must believe in "progress"...no...we equal "progress"...we are "progress".

The inevitability of "progress". I don't buy it. That is not true.

It's all smoke and mirrors, civilization shaping our very selves, to believe, like our egos do so well, that without it, we vanish.

With it, we vanish.

PlaneCrazy

Tue, Feb-28-06, 14:17

Let me state it somewhat differently.

Few people are ever completely content with the way things ARE. (many people claim to have been completely content with the way things USED to be, but things changed) Out of this discontent comes improvements, or at least what are seen as improvements at the time. Further knowledge may prove to us that these "improvements" were actually detrimental, but that is because we now have progressed in our knowledge.

The constant in the human condition is change. To survive in a changing world requires adaption. When we change, we rarely look for worse ways to do and to create. Even if we look to some "classical" or "golden" age, we never go absolutely back to a faithful recreation. Modernity always affects us in some way. To completely deny modernity and change takes such a herculean effort that it is by nature the exception. The norm is for change and "improvements" to happen.

Hopefully that more fully explains my observations.

Plane

kallyn

Tue, Feb-28-06, 14:20

Civilization/culture is a part of what makes us human. Part of being a member of the human species is a complete and irreversible dependence on culture. It has become one of our adaptations to the world around us...not an adaptation of the physical body perhaps, but of the mind. If you took an average human being and tossed them defenseless into the African savannah, odds are that person would not survive. He or she is completely dependent on culture for his very existence. A human without his tribe (and all that that entails) is like an lemur without its enormous eyes, a bat without its sonar, or a polar bear without its white fur and blubber.

Humans have been a successful species because of our big brains, and those big brains have clearly evolved culture as a mechanism for the survival of our species. To dismiss culture is folly. Without it, the human species as we know it WOULD vanish.

Wherever there are humans, there is culture. And wherever there is culture, there is civilization. Some civilization comes in the form of stick huts. Some comes in the form of cell phones. Trying to ignore civilization and run away back to the wilderness is counterproductive. It will go on without you, and it will probably eventually overtake you anyway. If you want real change in the direction of our human endeavor, try to work from the inside to effect the changes you want to see. Anything else is akin to jamming your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you."

PaleoDeano

Tue, Feb-28-06, 14:29

How vain is it to think we are above nature. Everything we have meddled with has only caused harm to us and to the real world. The real world is in charge, we are not. The real world will decide our fate, if we don't learn to live in the real world. All we have done is produced a fake world that has led us down a path of ultimate doom. It is one thing to love the illusion (as one might love a temporary high from drugs), it is another thing to buy into it! I don't think we are above nature and in the end nature will win, and we will destroy ourselves in this experiment we call "civilization". It is a fact (not a fantasy) that we have already destroyed many species of life and whole ecosystems. The ride to get to where some of us can bask in some "luxury" of our artificial world (on the backs of many slaves of the past and present), is not an indication of any "success". It is merely the false sense of "security" (a spell that we are under). It is so temporary in time. It will be washed away very soon, unless this "intelligence" we supposedly have comes to our aid. The way we have been living on this planet, I fail to see that happening at the present time. Please point to what we have done? We are "victims" of our own "intelligence". By walking away from our place in nature, we are dependent on our own simple species. That is truly scary, cuz the way in which society has evolved over the past several thousand years is not promising! It is very scary! Perhaps, by some miracle, it will turn around. But, it won't be with more of the same. It will be in a RETURN to a respect for nature. Sustainable farming, population control, not more mass consumerism, and "technological" mumbo jumbo (read profit motivated junk!). We need to get our act together, cuz we can't survive without nature, as much as we might dream about doing so! Time to wake up or die. It is a warning that we must heed, or we will be (should be) "taken out". Sorry, but that is the theme I get from this book.

PaleoDeano

Tue, Feb-28-06, 14:44

The norm is for change and "improvements" to happen.You seem to have blinders on when you speak of "improvements". Don't you see the destruction that has occurred in our history? Don't you see the need for REAL "improvements" that are far from reality in our present plight? Things are NOT good for humanity at the present time. They might be in the future (let's all hope they are), but I can't buy into this "continuous improvement theory" of yours. We have not been into that mode... sorry! Perhaps some of us have seen an "easier life"... and we are kidding ourselves into believing that it is "better". But, if we are really honest with ourselves, even our "easier life" has many negative aspects for even ourselves, let alone the natural world, and the majority of people in the civilization that has been built on this planet. I think your logic is too simple to say it is always about "continuous improvement". Cuz it's NOT!

CharlyA

Tue, Feb-28-06, 16:42

And wherever there is culture, there is civilization.

I don't see how this is correct, since humanity existed for millions of years prior to "civilization(s)".

Being human does not equal civilization. Groups of humans does not equal civilization.

Civilization is a relationship and humanity is not defined by that relationship.

See my point? We can't think outside of it. It has us.... as an all-pervasive ideology.

I am not the one sticking my fingers in my ears and denying anything. That is for sure.

I can not wait for this dis-ease of civilization to pass, or perhaps more correctly, for us to stop believing we need it.

PaleoDeano

Tue, Feb-28-06, 17:46

But, perhaps kallyn is saying that tribes=civilization? Are you denying that we need tribes to survive? I don't think any individual is going to make it alone. In that sense we do need "civilization" (tribes). The family is a tribe. Groups of friends are tribes. That is not the same as the evolution of social organization of sedentary people : slavery to feudalism to capitalism, etc. Culture comes from community. We can't escape that. We are in need of serious re-organization of society if we are to survive, though. Hierarchies are pretty destructive to the world, IMHO! And, we don't need to keep everything that got us here.

Duparc

Tue, Feb-28-06, 17:47

Surely it can be seen that PlaneCrazy has related fact based on observation and from this made some inevitable predictions. Anyone suffering from intellectual myopia may find difficulty in comprehending this. It is inescapable that humanity is progressing; any opposing view has to be motivated by fear or some ulterior motive. We are not just maggots on a dung-heap; human society is struggling to break free of the primordial-mud, like a butterfly from its chrysalis but, as yet, it has not severed the umbilical-chord of antiquity. What the future holds; who knows; but, with technology we are progressing and technology is the tool of humans and of no other species. PlaneCrazy's knowledge of the state of current technology is unique and where he thinks it is taking us is fascinating and we are privileged to have his views!

PaleoDeano

Tue, Feb-28-06, 17:53

Surely it can be seen that PlaneCrazy has related fact based on observation and from that made some inevitable predictions. Anyone suffering from intellectual myopia may find difficulty in comprehending this. It is inescapable that humanity is progressing; any opposing view has to be motivated by fear or some ulterior motive. We are not just maggots on a dung-heap; human society is struggling to break free of the primordial-mud, like a butterfly from its chrysalis but, as yet, it have not severed the umbilical-chord of antiquity. What the future holds; who knows; but, with technology we are progressing and technology is the tool of humans and of no other species. PlaneCrazy's knowledge of the state of current technology is unique and where he thinks it is taking us is fascinating and we are privileged to have it!I don't doubt that technology is necessary or unavoidable. It is more about how we are going to use technology to benefit us, and it has not always been used for that. It has often been used to serve a small class of people. We also need to be aware of how limited natural resources are. We can't (at this time) go beyond what our planet can support, or we will be in BIG trouble!

Duparc

Tue, Feb-28-06, 17:59

I do understand your position Paleo but as has been pointed out by PlaneCrazy the thrust of progress has been towards the betterment of the human condition

PaleoDeano

Tue, Feb-28-06, 18:37

I do understand your position Paleo but as has been pointed out by PlaneCrazy the thrust of progress has been towards the betterment of the human conditionOverall, I guess I would tend to agree with this. Humans are optimistic by nature.

CharlyA

Tue, Feb-28-06, 19:11

But, perhaps kallyn is saying that tribes=civilization? .

Tribes, clans, bands do NOT equal civilization. They equal groups of humans.

kallyn

Tue, Feb-28-06, 19:16

But, perhaps kallyn is saying that tribes=civilization?

Yes, that was what I meant. Sorry if I was confusing with my nomenclature.

I don't see how this is correct, since humanity existed for millions of years prior to "civilization(s)".

I believe that H. sapiens has only existed for approximately 200k years. To compare beyond that seems rather pointless to me. Even these earliest human remains have shown signs of culture, as in this article here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00093AD5-7E13-1EE7-A6B8809EC588EEDF

We can't think outside of it(civilization). It has us.... as an all-pervasive ideology.

That is part of my point. It is one of our adaptations to our environment, just as bipedalism and opposable thumbs are.

It seems that what you are really opposed to is modernization. I say, we are only here on Earth's whim. She can bat us out in the blink of an eye if she so chooses (take for example the tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes we've seen lately). To think that we have such a large effect that we could completely destroy nature is nothing but hubris. Greenhouse gases, for instance...one good volcano will put out more greenhouse gas than all of humanity combined, and it is a totally natural process. Animal extinctions, for instance...there have been at least five major global extinction events in Earth's history. It is nothing new. Some may call this time period a sixth. But extinction is a part of the cycle of life...if an animal has gone extinct, it's because it can no longer adapt quickly enough to its changing environment. Species go extinct all the time, and have been going extinct for as long as there has been life on Earth. Earth is not static. New species will arise in the future. Perhaps we'll go extinct at some point, and something else will come along and wonder what all our funny trash was for.

CharlyA

Tue, Feb-28-06, 19:24

We are not just maggots on a dung-heap; human society is struggling to break free of the primordial-mud, like a butterfly from its chrysalis but, as yet, it has not severed the umbilical-chord of antiquity. ... PlaneCrazy's knowledge of the state of current technology is unique and where he thinks it is taking us is fascinating and we are privileged to have his views!

I reject the idea that our choice is some sort of 'struggle to break free of the primordial-mud'. Why do we still feel the need to break free of anything primordial or even muddy? Seems as though we have this disgust of the earth and the primordial, which, I feel is a disgust with ourselves. Unhealthy.

Do people still feel that the real world, which we now separate and call the "wild" is "nasty,brutish and short"? Of course people do, it's an imprint from civilization. In no way am I saying to be isolated....that is getting old, really, why do people equate pre-civilization with isolation....methinks it's because we have been taught to believe that. That would keep us close to the light, so to speak and easily controllable.

What are we struggling to break ourselves from? I feel the problem is that very sentiment. It's still a belief that we are somehow separate from that which makes us,...is us. I consider that unhealthy, not fear, nor an ulterior motive (which would be what exactly?...thanks for the implication by the way... :rolleyes: ). See any connection between hating your body and hating the earthly, material, wildness of yourself?

I do not believe we are some kind of pinnacle of evolution, the chosen ones or struggling to break free of anything other than civilization itself. And agriculture is it's harbinger.

Eating is our primordial relationship.

I don't want more artificial light. I don't want machines in me or controlling me from the outside. I don't want to not eat (so I can do what? spend more time to embrace technology even more and fulfill human's manifest destiny of being the super conciousness?).

I want to eat.

CharlyA

Tue, Feb-28-06, 19:27

Yes, that was what I meant. Sorry if I was confusing with my nomenclature.

I believe that H. sapiens has only existed for approximately 200k years. To compare beyond that seems rather pointless to me. Even these earliest human remains have shown signs of culture, as in this article here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00093AD5-7E13-1EE7-A6B8809EC588EEDF

That is part of my point. It is one of our adaptations to our environment, just as bipedalism and opposable thumbs are.

It seems that what you are really opposed to is modernization. I say, we are only here on Earth's whim. She can bat us out in the blink of an eye if she so chooses (take for example the tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes we've seen lately). To think that we have such a large effect that we could completely destroy nature is nothing but hubris. Greenhouse gases, for instance...one good volcano will put out more greenhouse gas than all of humanity combined, and it is a totally natural process. Animal extinctions, for instance...there have been at least five major global extinction events in Earth's history. It is nothing new. Some may call this time period a sixth. But extinction is a part of the cycle of life...if an animal has gone extinct, it's because it can no longer adapt quickly enough to its changing environment. Species go extinct all the time, and have been going extinct for as long as there has been life on Earth. Earth is not static. New species will arise in the future. Perhaps we'll go extinct at some point, and something else will come along and wonder what all our funny trash was for.

If that is what you meant (tribes, not civilization), then why are you still arguing the point?

Culture does not equal civilization either.

What do you mean by modernization then?

And where have I said anything about us destoying the earth?

PaleoDeano

Tue, Feb-28-06, 20:33

New species will arise in the future. Perhaps we'll go extinct at some point, and something else will come along and wonder what all our funny trash was for.They will probably have long debates on their own forums about how all this "funny trash" was what we ate! :lol:

We'll be known as Obligate plasticametalica!

TheCaveman

Tue, Feb-28-06, 21:06

I asked, kind of hoping to get some reflection:

How are we going to do all of this fantastic/horrible stuff without electricity?

PaleoDeano

Tue, Feb-28-06, 22:31

I asked, kind of hoping to get some reflection:Well... we will find a way! When it comes to the fantastically horrible stuff... we always seem to! ;)

There... was that reflective enough? :sunny:

Duparc

Wed, Mar-01-06, 03:29

CharlyA: Humanity is not deliberately 'struggling' to break free from this old world of ours but it does appear to be evolving along this course. Contrary to your views, my sentiments are not compensatory for repressed feeling but rather based on what is before our eyes. I am at peace with myself and with our self-healing planet which I regard as the immaculate conception and it could just be the 'Garden of Eden' to which we are all seeking; who really knows, but let's not discard the possiblity. From what made us seems to be taking us to where we are going. If you find difficulty in believing this or that we humans are the pinnacle of evolution then why are we so gifted intellectually and dexterously advanced in relation to other species? There just might be some reason behind it which is beyond our credence. Those suggestions are based solely on observable signs that are scattered around us like confetti for all to see. Like yourself, I am only a witness.

PlaneCrazy

Wed, Mar-01-06, 08:00

Wow. A couple of points to address some of things brought up above.

Historically, there's been a lot of talk about humans being the height of creation, the master animals, the pinnicle of evolution. The assumption underlying those statements is that there is a value judgement. This thinking leads to the idea that we are so special that we are somehow seperate from our environment. I happen to disagree with this conclusion.

Our specialness within the natural world is that we are the only species that actively model our world in order to change it. We are the only species that we've been able to discover that not only can think through changes, but we can make models of the natural world in order to understand better how it all works. Every other species we've ever studied is primarily reactive. Some are more adaptable than others and can exploit new situations they find themselves in.

Think of the macaques in Japan who learned that the yams humans were feeding them tasted better when washed in salty sea water. This behavior was then taught from mother to child so that it is a behavior of the groups years later. The difference between this adaptation and human behavior is that we may make accidental discoveries like this, but then we are able to extrapolate from that experience that perhaps if we dip other foods in salt water they'd taste better. We can deduce general ideas, models, of our world and create new things from those models. No other species has ever been shown to do that. In other words, no other species has science.

Now, whether that behavior is "special" or not is a value judgement. There is no question that we have taken this ability and used it for ill. As I said before, from the very first artificial extension of our abilities, whether it was sharp sticks, fire or stone tools, that technological advance could be used for good AND ill. This remains true to this day.

And as the extensions to our powers grows in strength and impact, the potential for harm also grows. This also relates to our ability to destroy ourselves through war, pollution, etc... But the hopeful aspect to all of this is that along with the problems, once we've identified them as problems, comes the ability to use the same modeling to derive solutions. Read the latest issue of Scientific American to see at least one example. There's an article on the ability to create designer molecules that "eat" pollution and turn some of the deadliest toxins in existence into harmless substances. Yes, technology created these toxins, but we can also create ways to nutralize the damage that's been done, and to find better replacements as we better understand the impacts of what we've done. As our ability to model the universe increases, our ability to determine these negative impacts before they happen.

In the end, it's a matter of what happens first, we find better ways of dealing with the mess we've made, or our experimentation with insufficient evidence of impacts will poison us all. This goes back to the "destroying the earth" statement. It comes down to this, the Earth will survive without us (short of us figuring out a way to destroy the actual planet). It may be denuded of most life, it may be poisoned, but give it a few million years and it will be right as rain. We, on the other hand, while hardy and adaptive, can only really live in a fairly narrow band of environments. So, I'm not too worried about the Earth, but I am more worried about our ability to survive. I'd like to see us be good stewards of what we've got, but we can easily tie good care of the environment back to selfish reasons. (and I believe we're the stewards of the environment not from any religious reasons, but because we have the ability to destroy it. With great power comes great responsibility)

As for power issues, yes, energy is a major challenge facing us. The good news is that we're developing much better, more efficient, lighter, cheaper sources of energy (nano-designed, carbon-tube solar panels and nano-tech batteries...) at the same time as we're about to break into a whole different realm of computer, quantum computing, that will actually require much less power to run. Those huge, hot, electricity-hog server farms that run things like the internet, Google, etc. will be as extinct in 2025 as the Neaderthal is today.

Some very persuasive research has shown that our technological capacities have followed a pretty reliable trend since the very earliest evidence of hominids. This trend is not linear, it is logrithmic. What that means is that while in the short term it seems that we're developing technology along at a fairly regular pace, in reality that pace is times two, rather than plus two every couple of years. And as we start to go around the knee of the curve, these continuous advances actually increase the factor by which we are developing. How long did it take 1/4 of the population to adopt the telephone? How long did it take 1/4 of the population to adopt the web? Adoption rates are increasing, innovation rates are increasing.

In mathmatical terms, if we count the technical development rate of the year 2000 as x, if things were linear, we would expect 100x amount of technical development over the 21st century at year 2000 rates. Instead, with our increasing rate along with the logrithmic nature of development, we will actually have 20,000 years of development over the 21st century at year 2000 rates. It is our responsibility to ensure that this development does work to better the human condition, which does include our environment.

I personally believe that the last two hundred years will be seen as a watershed with the industrial revolution of the last 150 years seen as a horribly destructive period of human history that we'll survive, but will be digging ourselves out of for a while.

Plane

PaleoDeano

Wed, Mar-01-06, 12:43

I personally believe that the last two hundred years will be seen as a watershed with the industrial revolution of the last 150 years seen as a horribly destructive period of human history that we'll survive, but will be digging ourselves out of for a while.

PlaneYes. I got us on this energy crisis mode... I was only asking if we would be sleeping more when the lights had to go out during "off-hours". And if we would be eating differently due to transportation costs. I think we will HAVE to get serious with conservation if we are going to ward off a lot of this "horrible destruction" to our way of life. I really don't think it is wise to continue the mass consumption and mindless use of resources that we have been engaged in for the last several decades.

PlaneCrazy

Wed, Mar-01-06, 14:15

I really don't think it is wise to continue the mass consumption and mindless use of resources that we have been engaged in for the last several decades.

Totally agree. What I'm hoping for is a more mindful existence on the planet.

One very mind-bending possibility (and much more likely than flying cars) beginning sometime in the next 50 years is what's called Nano-based-manufacturing. Essentially, a desktop device using robots less than 100 nanometers across will be able to build anything we can design molecule by molecule from readily available raw material. They could also recycle anything unwanted the same way into the same raw material. The value will no longer be in the actual manufacturing of objects, but instead in the information needed to manufacture them, i.e. the design. With the right design we can build anything. There's the double-edged sword. "Anything" can include a whole lot of nasty things, or it could provide practically unlimited food, medicine, clothing from raw material that is readily available even in old landfills, or polluted former industrial sites. (mainly carbon, hydrogen, etc...)

These nano-bots can potentially run on all kinds of fuels. One very successful area of research is for them to use ATP, the same fuel we use internally for our cells. This could help fuel medical nano-bots that could work from within our bodies to correct errent cell growth, eliminate DNA transcription errors in normal cell reproduction (one major source of aging), or rebuild destroyed structures like from Parkinsons, or stroke, or massive nerve damage.

Regardless, the amount of energy needed for manufacturing will drastically be reduced, get us away from fossil fuels, and be much, much cleaner. The trick will be to survive until we get there, and to work very hard to reduce the possibly dangerous uses of the technology. There's no putting the genie back into the bottle. If we try and squash the technology, we'll just end up driving it underground to less responsible scientists and entities.

I'm not completely optimistic about the future, but I do believe that there might be some hope. Of course, when I read about the merging of biological and non-biological intelliegence to make us increadily smarter and able to think faster, I just think that most people will just become more powerfully stupid and able to be shallow, idiotic and immature that much faster. :rolleyes:

Plane

Demi

Wed, Mar-01-06, 15:29

Great thread! ... especially as I've just started reading 'Lights Out' myself.

Just thought that those reading here might be interested in this little anecdote:

I am currently taking part in the Breakthrough Generations Study (http://www.breakthrough.org.uk/what_we_do/research/the_breakthrough_generations_study/index.html) in the UK, which is a study researching the causes of breast cancer.

I have just had to complete a very thorough questionnaire, and one of the sections dealt with sleep patterns:

Over the past year, what time do you usually go to sleep? When do you wake up?
Over the past year, how many hours do you usually sleep at night? (Give an average)
On average over the last year, how dark has the room been in which you sleep? - light enough to read, light enough to see across the room but not read, light enough to see your hand in front of you but not to see across the room, too dark to see anything, or you wear a mask.
On average in recent months, how many times per night have you woken up and put the lights on or gone into a bright room?

The same questions are asked about other periods of your life - i.e., childhood, adolescence, 20s etc., and a further group of questions deals with shift work, night working etc.

I find it extremely interesting that they are thinking along these lines with regard to cancer research.

lizzyLC

Wed, Mar-01-06, 15:31

I just started Lights Out - fascinating !!

PaleoDeano

Wed, Mar-01-06, 15:57

I find it extremely interesting that they are thinking along these lines with regard to cancer research.Demi, that is so interesting that they are asking these questions! I think I better put up that black plastic, I got awhile ago, over my bedroom windows ASAP! ;)

PaleoDeano

Wed, Mar-01-06, 16:01

when I read about the merging of biological and non-biological intelliegence to make us increadily smarter and able to think faster, I just think that most people will just become more powerfully stupid and able to be shallow, idiotic and immature that much faster. :rolleyes:

PlaneYah... that is what would happen, no doubt! If there is a trend toward non-living entities (machines) that can reproduce themselves and take over the world, etc. I will be glad to die in the next 50 years! I guess I am too much a "naturalist"/"spiritualist" at heart! I love computers and such, but only if I can leave them and go backpacking way back into the wilderness and see other LIFE forms! ;)

And while I think it is cool to try and understand things... it is also wise to realize we can never understand things fully (that is the beauty of the mystery of things... otherwise, with nothing more to discover, we would be bored to tears!).

Demi

Sat, Mar-04-06, 06:26

A very interesting article with regard to research into how lack of sleep affects hormones that control appetite has appeared in the UK media this morning:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=287970

PaleoDeano

Sat, Mar-04-06, 12:16

Great article, Demi! Thanks for sharing!

Duparc

Mon, Mar-06-06, 03:10

Demi: An interesting article to which I concur as I noticed that if I am sleepy my concentration ebbs and that I might also begin to feel hungry but, then, my experience says to me, so what?

Those people whom I know who are chronically obese, to my knowledge, would, given the opportunity, sleep most of the day and do tend to stay in bed if not required to arise for other reasons. Those in their youth who are slim (which used to be the norm) would easily sleep 12 hours a day if there was nothing to compel them to get out of bed. My observations tell me that the difference here is in energy levels, and energy is a feature that is readily affected by the quality of diet. As for myself, if I am on a diet or controlling my food intake, then I require less sleep as my energy levels tend to surge and with this surge in energy so my weight drops.

Furthermore, while sleep can help to solve problems so too can wakefulness if one learns how to clear the mind of extraneous concerns and allow it to relax. It almost seems as if we cannot force the mind into being creative yet creative it will be if we give it the freedom to be so which probably happens during sleep.

While there is, undoubtedly, a connection between sleep and weight, my suspicious is that it is only a loose one and one that has not yet been properly explored.

Meg_S

Mon, Mar-06-06, 07:02

THAT is a good point too Duparc. I've noticed that when on very restricted caloric intakes (for me very restricted carbs go along with this) bpth my physical and mental, ESPECIALLY mental energy and creativity has surged. During these periods I went to bed later than normal, and easily woke and became active early in the am. The hungrier I am (chronically) the brighter I feel. My problem is that after a long enough period of restriction I hit a point where I become obsessed with food and thoughts of food completely take over my mind leaving little room for much else.
A little off topic, sorry.

Demi

Tue, Mar-07-06, 14:45

PaleoDeano

Tue, Mar-07-06, 14:48

wouldn't moonlight/starlight have meant that it wasn't totally dark at night for our ancestors either??But, if they were sleeping in caves... ;)

Demi

Tue, Mar-07-06, 14:56

Originally posted by PaleoDeano
But, if they were sleeping in caves...
But it could also depend on how deep the caves were .... :)

PaleoDeano

Tue, Mar-07-06, 14:59

But it could also depend on how deep the caves were .... :)Or if somebody left the campfire on! ;)

Demi

Fri, Mar-17-06, 03:23

PaleoDeano

Sat, Mar-18-06, 18:31

Came across this interesting article this morning, linking lack of sleep with childhood obesity:

Children who do not get enough sleep are more likely to be obese (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article351824.ece)Demi,

Thanks for this article. It is right in line with this thread!

From the article:

"Reduction in sleeping hours has become a hallmark of our society. If the findings prove to be reproducible and generalisable ... we could add sleep duration to the environmental factors that are prevalent in our society and that contribute to ... obesity."

Miss K

Mon, Mar-27-06, 11:44

Hi, Everyone.

My family and I just started trying to implement the sleeping guidelines outlined in Lights Out. I have also started low carbing.

Personally, I find that the results are amazing. Before Lights Out, I went to bed around 11 and woke up between 5 and 7. I also usually woke up briefly between 2 and 4. No matter how tired I felt, I was unable to sleep past 6 or 7.

Incredibly, I have discovered that when I go to bed earlier (between 7:30 and 8:30, usually), I can sleep for up to 11.5 hours. It is amazing! Truly mind boggling.

I do not know whether everyone needs that much sleep, but I have been feeling much more rested. My head feels clearer, my anxiety is much reduced (I used to have severe anxiety), and I am told that I look brighter.

Has anyone else experienced similar results?

ItsTheWooo

Mon, Mar-27-06, 16:33

I'm very fascinated by the idea that sleeping contributes a fundamental role in maintaining normal physiology (health). I've long suspected that sleep had a sort of "reparing/restoring" function on the body, that essential growth takes place only in sleep. After dieting and restricting awhile, thus "depleting" myself, I notice I begin to crave meats terribly. Once I do eat meats in such a state, I feel extremely warm, usually dump water, and become very tired. It's not a sugar-coma tired but an "exhausted" tired like exercising, like I need to rest and replenish myself. I reason my body needs to build and do things that are only physiologically possible in sleep. As I eat more and gain weight, this effect tends to diminish.

I also know, from experience, depriving myself of sleep destroys my metabolism (it's like eating carbs), makes me lethargic, hungry, emotionally unstable/depressive, so on.

I've been reading the snippets of the book on amazon.com and I am worried about the logical consistency of the author's claims (as well as evidence to substantiate them). For example, she says high serotonin, not low serotonin, causes chemical depression. If that is true why do SSRIs alleviate depressive symptoms? SSRIs prevent the reuptake of serotonin (where it is destroyed) so more is available to bind to receptors in the synapse (or at least this was my understanding).SSRIs decrease depressive tendencies (they are depression drugs) yet they increase bioavailability of serotonin.

Furthermore, she also says that high serotonin correlates with high insulin; therefore it stands to reason that the obese = high serotonin emotional and behavioral profile.
This does not follow. The profile of excessive serotonin is usually associated with those who do not eat much and are usually wirey and thin - obsessive compulsive, nervous, rigid, cold/withdrawn, depressive, anxious, fearful and phobic, cautious and very harm avoidant, thrifty/hording tendencies, so on.

Those who are that way usually are thin; likewise those who become thin (i.e. undereat) become that way. I know, because, I am one of those people now. The more I under eat, the more I fit that profile. I've seen numerous dieters do total 180s and become neurotic obsessives whereas previously they were stereotypically heavy in personality. Obviously it must be cyclical, stress and this "profile" of behaviors (stress -> behaviors -> more stress -> more behaviors). Some kind of positive feedback disease loop going on, since it can be both organically present (i.e. born that way) or triggered later (some kind of stressful event such as emotional trauma or starving yourself i.e. dieting to lose weight).

When I was heavy and eating more, my personality was much different, and I think this is a neurochemical thing related to food intake. I was much more like a "classic high weight" behavioral profile of high dopamine and low serotonin (marked by low impulse control, sensation-seeking, living for the moment, highs and lows, so on. ). When I "lose control" of my food intake and start eating too many carbs, I gradually start becoming more like the the high dopamine behavioral profile - lack of impulse control, binging problems.

If insulin causes chronic high serotonin, and abnormally high serotonin causes those symptoms, why are those behaviors consistently linked to food abstinence and thinness? Why are dopamine-flavored behaviors consistently linked to food overindulgence and obesity?

Here's my reasoning. I think it is more likely that the spikes in serotonin from over eating carbs are not causing chronic high serotonin, but instead, contributing to a serotonin deficiency that results in an overabundance of dopamine. Yes, technically, eating raises serotonin. However, much like eating carbs can actually cause low blood sugar/lethargy, so can spiking your serotonin cause a deficiency of the neurotransmitter plus burnout to it. The carbs flood the brain with serotonin, which then cause a crash later, leaving you in a dopamine-dominant, low state. You then seek more serotonin, which leads to carb cravings. The blood sugar and probably the serotonin crash are both contributing to overeating.

Much like the hypoglycemic roller coaster, this imbalance is, for most people, impermanent and fluxes with diet and amount of food eaten. In other words, if ya just stop over eating or eating too many carbs, soon you normalize your neurochemistry and food intake patterns. The dopamine/serotonin balances itself out.

However, if you persist in under eating and it becomes excessive (for example, dieting to lose weight to be culturally correct)... then you create a physiological stress state, and stress states are associated with the high-serotonin profile. Then your normal eating impulses become abnormal - you lose your appetite and your desire for food, you become ocd, neurotic, fearful, and the stereotypical nervous thin. Might even trigger anorexia, assuming prejudice against fat/eating is present. That's why trauma and dieting are catalysts for anorexia and food abstinence - these things burden the body with tremendous stress, which causes a neurochemical imbalance inverse of the kind seen in over eating overweight people (high serotonin, low dopamine).

I've only read a few pages of the book (available on amazon) so maybe my conclusions match the authors, but from what I gather she seems to imply it is the HIGH serotonin that is responsible for the maladies experienced by the obese... when IMO this is not logically consistent. The problems of too much serotonin (or insufficient dopamine) are observed in those highly stressed in some way, often by food restriction... the wiry, nervous thin.
The profile is NOT consistent with high weight and eating generously. The high weight profile is consistent with high dopamine, deficient serotonin.

TBoneMitch

Mon, Mar-27-06, 21:11

Woo, I think you messed up the roles of serotonin and dopamine.

High serotonin makes you sleepy and mildly euphoric, and eating carbs increase the uptake of tryptophan in the brain (tryptophan is the building block of serotonin).

So those heavy, carb-doped people are on a serotonin-induced coma, and feel no energy to take a part in any action.

Hence depressive symptoms if the situation continues for a while.

nraden

Tue, Mar-28-06, 17:05

I'm T.S. Wiley's husband. I'm glad you enjoyed Lights Out. You'll probably enjoy her next one, Sex, Lies and Menopause. She's also working on a men's health book.

nraden

Tue, Mar-28-06, 17:08

Sorry, forgot to mention that she and Dr. Atkins were good friends. She misses him very much. She was on his radio show about once a month and (this is some Lights Out humor) he would call her on her cell phone at 8 or 9 PM (we're in California) and I would always hear her say (he was in New York), "Bob, shouldn't you be asleep?"

TheCaveman

Tue, Mar-28-06, 19:38

I'm T.S. Wiley's husband. I'm glad you enjoyed Lights Out. You'll probably enjoy her next one, Sex, Lies and Menopause. She's also working on a men's health book.

Holy cow, Neil! I must say I'm glad you found us. I'd send you a PM, but you have to have a certain number of posts before I can.

You have a lot of questions to answer, I'm afraid.

Miss K

Wed, Mar-29-06, 08:18

Hi, nraden.

Welcome to the forum. It is great to have you here.

I cannot remember where I found it, but I saw a picture of your wife on the Internet the other day. She had long hair and a little bit of make up on. She may or may not have been wearing glasses. Anyways, she looked amazing! She looked happier, healthier, more vibrant, and about twenty pounds lighter than the picture found in the back of Lights Out. She seemed to positively glow. How long did it take for her appearance to change so dramatically? Have you noticed similar changes in your own appearance?

Thanks,

~Kristin

P.S. My mom is currently ready Sex, Lies, and Menopause for school and quite enjoying it.

nraden

Wed, Mar-29-06, 22:15

We've been married for 33 years, she looks the same to me! I think that was just a bad picture. I don't notice anything about myself, I'm sort of oblivious.

I don't think I mentioned that she was also very close to Dr. Atkins. His death was a real blow. I thought I already posted this, but I don't see it. He would call her on her cellphone, about 8 or 9PM California time and she would always say to him (in New York), "Shouldn't you be sleeping?"

They were working on a book idea together about seasonal eating. She may get around to it, but the drug companies, NIH, compounding pharmacists, doctors and FDA are all keeping her pretty busy right now, not in a good way.

Making progress in this environment is brutal.

-Neil

nraden

Wed, Mar-29-06, 22:17

oh duh I did post that. I need more sleep!

Demi

Fri, Mar-31-06, 12:49

Originally posted by nraden
I'm glad you enjoyed Lights Out. You'll probably enjoy her next one, Sex, Lies and Menopause
I really enjoyed Lights Out too, and because of your post, I've just ordered Sex, Lies and Menopause from Amazon. I think that I'm going to find it a very relevant read!

nraden

Fri, Mar-31-06, 15:07

Very nice work at this post about vitamin D: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=210491

To get us back on track a bit, have you noticed that people on these forums complain either of being tired or snacking at night and no one ever suggests to these folks that they GET MORE SLEEP? All the suggestions revolve around willpower or magic remedies.

The connection is NEVER made between being tired and needing sleep, at least on these forums. Why is that?

I want to tell you a story about Susie (that's her name, T.S. Wiley is her nom de plume). She was on Good Morning America when Lights Out came out. Diane Sawyer was interviewing her and was most interested in Susie's description for low-fat and exercise: "Your body thinks there's a famine and and there is a tiger chasing you."

Sawyer couldn't get her head around this, Susie reminded her that Jim Fixx dropped dead. So Sawyer switched to the extra hours of sleep, incredulolus that anyone could sleep even eight hours. Susie's response:

"When the government told you to eat low-fat, you did it. You lived on hay and straw. When the experts told you to get more exercise, you got up in the middle of the night, in the bitter cold, with knees aching, at risk of being struck by a car, and did it. All of these things you did willingly. All I ask is that you get a little more sleep. Is that too much to ask?"

-NR

nraden

Fri, Mar-31-06, 15:13

I wanted to send this note to you privately, but I couldn't. I haven't quite figured this site out yet. Anyway, I just wanted to tell you, watch out for Tom Wehr, he's not an honest broker.

-NR

nraden

Fri, Mar-31-06, 15:39

[QUOTE=Duparc]This thread, which has slipped in, almost unnoticed, to the P & N section, has sure raised a lot of interest. Could this be because it is a controversial subject? For example, as mentioned in an earlier post, 7 hours sleep is my maximum and if ever I oversleep I usually suffer for it.

I wanted to read through this whole thread, now that I've found it, before commenting, but I just don't want to lose this thought. Duparc - you don't get it. It doesn't matter how much sleep you prefer, you're one person. Thank goodness that humans are so variable. Also, you live in Scotland, and unless you're lived in a poisoned, polluted part of one of the big cities, IT'S REALLY DARK THERE AND LIFE IS NOTHING LIKE BEING IN THE US. So if you have a comment, make it on on the merits of the ideas and back it up, don't just shoot it down with a riot of subjective opinions.

Now, here is what you don't get and, so far as I can tell, no one else picked up on either. There are four neurotransmitters that control a zillion metabolic processes: seratonin, prolactin, cortisol and melatonin. They all do a choreographed dance while you sleep, and each one acts as a negative feedback loop for the others. It's a beautiful system. Light is registered through your skin to those little guys, cyptochromes or something, I forgot the exact name. That's how your innards know when it's day or night. Fool them and you trip up the dance of the neurotransmitters.

It has NOTHING to do with how you feel and how much sleep it takes to make you feel good. It takes a certain amount of time for these guys to do their work, a lot of which has to do with the functioning of your immune system. I don't really understand the details, but it's all in the book.

-NR

nraden

Fri, Mar-31-06, 16:00

Unless, of course, they had small babies. :)

I started out a skeptic, but with a great deal of research, I'm convinced that the odds are quite good that my nine-month-old son will, if he chooses, never have to die. How's that for a question never broached in parenting books? How do you raise a child who will be immortal?

Plane

God forbid.

None of these technologies will do a damned thing unless the healthcare system is motivated by health, not profit and prestige. And all the tools in the world won't work if your theory of the organism (human) is wrong. Medicine and science still look at people as machines. No, not even machines, and beakers. Just pour some stuff in and stir. My wife often says that the reason doctors don't know anything about health is that all the bodies they studied in med school were already dead.

The genome thing is huge bluff. All you get is a snapshot at a point in time. It's a very complex, non-linear, dynamic system. That's why even identical twins become less identical with age. A gene has to express itself to have an affect. But all of these expressed proteins travel up and down and turn other genes on or off. Feedback loops. Sensitive dependence on in in initial conditions. That's an NP-hard problem, in other words, we can't model it.

It doesn't matter, really, the Ice Age will be here in a few years anyway...

-NR

nraden

Fri, Mar-31-06, 16:12

OK, have just finished reading Lights Out - thoroughly enjoyed it and I did think it made some salient points.

However, my thought is this ~ wouldn't moonlight/starlight have meant that it wasn't totally dark at night for our ancestors either??
(I can't remember if this point has already been touched on here, so apologies if I'm repeating it).

Which leads me on to why we should need to sleep in total darkness now (as well as making sure that we do not expose any part of our skin)? - I'm just wondering if something as simple as wearing a sleep mask would be sufficient for the purpose.

Ask yourself this question: How do blind people's bodies know when it's night or day? The answer is that light enters your body from your skin, not just your eyes. There was a study at U of Chicago where they had two groups in total darkness. One group had a small fiber optic light shining on the backside of one knee. The control group didn't. The group with the light had significantly higher insulin levels than the control group.

-NR

TheCaveman

Sat, Apr-01-06, 11:18

It has NOTHING to do with how you feel and how much sleep it takes to make you feel good. It takes a certain amount of time for these guys to do their work, a lot of which has to do with the functioning of your immune system. I don't really understand the details, but it's all in the book.

Okay, here's the first of many questions for you, Neil.

Many people here, and in this thread, report "needing" less sleep while on a low-carbohydrate diet. I'm not comfortable with how I explain to them that, yes they may feel better on less sleep now, but that their bodies are designed to sleep a certain way.

I try to keep the chat about hormones and neurotransmitters to a minimum, and say instead that their desire to get up after five hours of sleep is motivated by something other than the desire to stay sleepy for the health of it. Susie MUST have heard a million times the notion that as people start eating better and losing weight, they feel energized and somehow translate that into wanting to sleep less.

It's a bit troubling to me when people who ate sugar and cranked up their insulin too high and became insulin resistant (and serotonin resistant), started eating low-carb, fixing their insulin problem (and the first step to fixing their serotonin problem), and then sleep less because they feel differently (more energized).

Considering that you can't FIX insulin resistance with a few weeks of low-carb, my fear is that instead of eating sugar to get their bloodsugar up, they instead get less sleep, and use the resulting high cortisol to keep their bloodsugar up. Insulin receptors are still resistant after such a short time, and the body starts screaming for more insulin BECAUSE the receptors are still resistant.

I think this urge is what brings on the desire to sleep less, and exercise more, both of which are perfect ways to increase cortisol, thus increasing bloodsugar, thus increasing insulin.

I'd love to hear the pat answer I think she has for the claim that people eating low-carb (or just better) feel like they "need" less sleep. (Beyond the answer that, no they don't.) Is there a good way to get this point across without out launching into biochemistry?

nraden

Sat, Apr-01-06, 18:03

Okay, here's the first of many questions for you, Neil.

I'd love to hear the pat answer I think she has for the claim that people eating low-carb (or just better) feel like they "need" less sleep. (Beyond the answer that, no they don't.) Is there a good way to get this point across without out launching into biochemistry?

First of all, if you haven't picked up on how Susie thinks, she sees everything in rhythm, cycles, continuity and balance. That's why she laughs when people mention radiation or chemotherapy. That's why the Wiley Protocol for BHRT changes the amounts of estrogen and progesterone every 3 days in a 29.5 day cycle. So for as I know, the hours of sleep are related to the hours of daylight. Your body sets its daily clock based on this and the rise and fall of seratonin/cortisiol/melatonin/prolactin are timed by this clock. If you disrupt their operation, you create chaos and you screw up the clock. Susie says that estrogen alone controls at least 5000 metabolic functions, other than reproduction, and every neurotramsmitter is just as agile.

You can't change one thing. It changes others things, which changes other things. That's why big medicine is so hopeless, they don't see it that way. (By the way, she's pretty down on supplements for the same reason). Got cancer cells? Burn em, poison em, but don't ask the question, "Why does cancer exist in nature?"

-NR

TheCaveman

Sat, Apr-01-06, 19:15

First of all, if you haven't picked up on how Susie thinks, she sees everything in rhythm, cycles, continuity and balance. That's why she laughs when people mention radiation or chemotherapy. That's why the Wiley Protocol for BHRT changes the amounts of estrogen and progesterone every 3 days in a 29.5 day cycle. So for as I know, the hours of sleep are related to the hours of daylight. Your body sets its daily clock based on this and the rise and fall of seratonin/cortisiol/melatonin/prolactin are timed by this clock. If you disrupt their operation, you create chaos and you screw up the clock. Susie says that estrogen alone controls at least 5000 metabolic functions, other than reproduction, and every neurotramsmitter is just as agile.

Heh, so I guess the answer is "no", then, eh?

Do peoples' eyes glaze over when she gives them an answer like this (which sounds much like the answer I used to give)? As true as all that is, the hard sell on this question always prevokes a response like "Well, all I know is that since I've been low-carbing, I need so much less sleep!" (And we're back to square one.)

One answer that I've been getting a better response to, is when I tell people that our bodies EXPECT long hours of darkness, and when we don't get it, it has to do all sorts of terrible things in order to keep us healthy, or at least upright. Our bodies weaken when they have to do so much improvising. The wear and tear on our immune system really is enough to answer the question of why we get heart disease and cancer. Our bodies were built for a certain environment, and the farther away we get from that environment, the more trouble we have with our bodies.

I'm glad I'm not the only one having trouble explaining all this without reference to biochemistry or evolution.

Here's another question, Neil: Where is Susie's blog? She's taking a lot of heat on the internet about the BHRT, and it seems like the wrong time for her to be silent.

Another: Is she continuing to write with Dr. Formby, or have they parted ways as authors? Who is she writing her new book with, if anyone? Lot's more questions on the new book, by the way.

nraden

Sat, Apr-01-06, 20:20

Heh, so I guess the answer is "no", then, eh?

Do peoples' eyes glaze over when she gives them an answer like this (which sounds much like the answer I used to give)? As true as all that is, the hard sell on this question always prevokes a response like "Well, all I know is that since I've been low-carbing, I need so much less sleep!" (And we're back to square one.)

She'd probably say that it's natural selection at work. They dodged the hi-carb bullet, but you can't beat fate. LOL. No, her eyes never glaze over, she's from the midwest and does the best she can to be nice to everyone.

...The wear and tear on our immune system really is enough to answer the question of why we get heart disease and cancer. Our bodies were built for a certain environment, and the farther away we get from that environment, the more trouble we have with our bodies.

Not so sure. She sees cancer as a natural force, taking out organisms when they aren't useful. Aging. Not reproductive. Now the immune system, she has all sorts of new material about that, because she's battling some pretty awful autoimmunity herself.

Here's another question, Neil: Where is Susie's blog? She's taking a lot of heat on the internet about the BHRT, and it seems like the wrong time for her to be silent.

Another: Is she continuing to write with Dr. Formby, or have they parted ways as authors? Who is she writing her new book with, if anyone? Lot's more questions on the new book, by the way.

There won't be a blog, she dosn't really have time and doesn't really like the internet anyway. As for the heat, it's a classic case of a spurned obsessed fan getting even. Also, when women start the WP, a lot of them are already sick. When they don't respond like they've been to the fountaqin of youth, they get angry. This particular woman used her hormones like a street drug and blamed Susie when she got sick. Susie decided the best way to deal with it is to ignore it. Suzanne Somers will have her new book out in a few months, and there is a lot of ink devoted to Susie (favorably). Honestly, to do what Susie is trying to do will take 20-30 years. She's got her eye on the long-term.

The fact is that Susie is following thousands of women on the protocol, some for five years now, and the results are very impressive. Some of these women have cancer and are doing very well, and there hasn't been a single recurrence.

If you would like to see a lengthy rebuttal of some of that stuff on the internet, contact me off-list.

No, she is not working with Formby, he's an opportunitist, unreliable and has some personal demons he hasn't really dealt with. What can I say, he's a scientist. They're not the most upright people in the world, you can buy them pretty cheap. She is still working with Dr. Taguchi, the oncologist who contributed to Sex, Lies and Menopause. Right now, Susie is trying to standardize compounding pharmacy, break through the standard of care in HRT and is going back to the lab to figure out heart disease, which she believes has more to do with CMV than cholesterol. Stay tuned for that.

One bit of trivia is that the book (Lights Out) was originally called Kept In the Dark, but a new head of the publisher came in after the book was book, hated it, forced the name change and made the cover look like a diet book and then pulled the publicity. It came out and died.

SLM was supposed to be published in March, 2001 but they pulled it because of the Iraq War (airwaves clogged with war news). Publication was rescheduled for September. Right before it released the Women's Health Initiative released its "estrogen will kill you report," and THAT caused the publisher to pull the publicity budget too. The funniest moment was when Susie was on with Paula Zahn, who started the interview with, "So T.S., I understand you believe women should start having babies at 15."

This is a hard business.

-NR

Demi

Sun, Apr-02-06, 09:43

Have just read this article, and thought posters to this thread might find it of interest too:

Bedtime Stories

The Independent on Sunday
London, UK
2 April, 2006

Suffer sleepless nights? Can't get out of bed? Katy Guest meets the experts who are finally unravelling the mysteries of the Land of Nod

Napoleon Bonaparte, who was not a good sleeper, advocated "six hours sleep for a man, seven for a woman and eight for a fool". Two hundred years later, things are a little more confused.

According to a new survey, we are a nation of insomniacs: almost half of Britons say they get less than five hours' sleep a night; 65 per cent have trouble sleeping and four out of five do not feel refreshed when they wake. They claim to be suffering from chronic lack of sleep.

But these people are about to get a rude awakening. The author of a new book, Sleepfaring, would like to debunk some of the ideas surrounding "sleep debt". Professor Jim Horne is the director of the Sleep Centre at Loughborough University and edits the Journal of Sleep Research; he says that claims we are all going through life on the verge of nervous collapse are nonsense - and that the "recommended" eight hours is a myth. So are half of British people fools?

"There is no evidence that we are getting less sleep than we used to," says Professor Horne. "The survey, by GMTV, said that 65 per cent of people have trouble sleeping. I have not found that. Of course, if you ask people whether they would like more sleep, most say yes. But if you ask them what they would do with an extra hour a day, most wouldn't use it to sleep."

What Professor Horne suspects is that people are not failing to sleep enough, but failing to sleep right. "A very few people are naturally short sleepers: five hours or less," he says. "A very few are naturally long sleepers: nine hours or more. But for everyone else it is the quality of sleep, not the quantity, that is important. Six hours of uninterrupted sleep are much better than nine hours of interrupted sleep."

Stephen Emegbo, a sleep physiologist at the University of Surrey's Sleep Research Centre, agrees. "Everybody is as individual as a thumbprint when it comes to how much sleep we need," he says. "People like Thatcher and Churchill famously claimed to perform well on five hours' sleep a night; but put somebody else on that and they won't be able to perform. Older people need less sleep than younger people. And women tend to have more slow-wave or restorative sleep than men."

He does, however, stress the importance of "sleep hygiene" - keeping your bedroom cool, dark and free from televisions and stimulating electrical equipment. "People forget how important sleep really is. If people keep working 16- or 18-hour days their vigilance and performance will be affected and health issues will begin to show."

This belief is borne out by the statistics. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 20 per cent of accidents on motorways are caused by tiredness, and more than 300 people are killed each year by drivers falling asleep at the wheel. The relationship organisation, Relate, believes that sleep disorders are the underlying cause of many relationship break-ups.

Many sleep disorders go undiagnosed: problems such as sleep apnoea, where the patient is woken by interrupted breathing, or restless legs, where twitching or crawling sensations interfere with sleep, are easy to "get used to", according to Professor Horne. Mr Emegbo worries that "most people going to their GP do not report difficulty sleeping as their primary issue: they think it is the norm." Professor Horne advises insomniacs not to go to bed until they are sleepy, and to try doing a jigsaw instead: "there's something particular about using the eyes and hands, and it makes the eyelids feel heavy. Going to bed in a relaxed state of mind is more important than anything else."

But if you are stilltired after an eight-hour night, you could be one of the 2 per cent with an undiagnosed sleep disorder; and you are in good company. Emegbo cites the example of Fat Joe in Dickens's Pickwick Papers: the child who fell asleep standing up. "I would diagnose sleep apnoea," he says. "We see that a lot." Reassuringly, this is not such a modern phenomenon. And perhaps we are not fools after all.

The Napper

Andy Bartlett, 33, product designer, worldsapart.co.uk, Newquay

I've got two young children and my wife's with them all day, so the only time I can make a contribution is in the evenings and at night. I only get five hours' sleep because I'm up a lot feeding the kids and settling them. If I have a big sleep I feel groggy, whereas a nap takes the edge off the tiredness and helps me get stuck into the rest of the day.

In meetings I sit in the darkest corner, open my book, pen in hand, and get a bit of shut-eye. The skill I've developed is to listen just enough so that if your project comes up you can snap out of it. In a meeting I can only get away with a couple of minutes at a time, but other naps can last between 20 minutes and half an hour. Having naps means I am less grumpy and tired and can help my family a bit more. It's win at home and win at work as well.

National Nap at Work Week ends today

The Insomniac

Carrie Frain, 25, transport officer, London

According to my mum I haven't slept through the night since I was born, but about seven years ago it got much worse. On a typical night I go to bed when I'm tired, toss and turn for a bit and then get up to watch some telly. I am up and down all night, getting something to eat, tidying up and sorting out the house until I eventually feel tired enough to drop off. I usually get about two to four hours' sleep a night.

Getting through work on no sleep is very hard and for a while I just refused to get out of bed in the morning because I was so exhausted. I was so run down that I started suffering from recurring ear infections and colds; and then the panic attacks started because I was so tired. If I haven't slept for a couple of days I tend to get really angry, then I get very emotional.

I've tried all sorts of remedies to help me sleep - herbal and non-herbal, I've tried sleeping pills, lavender and they haven't had any effect, so I have just learnt to adapt to my insomnia and now I'm managing to cope a bit better. I just have to keep telling myself that eventually I will get some sleep and accept the way I am and keep going.

The Pill Popper

Juliette Meeus, 45, television news producer, London

I wake up in the middle of the night and stay awake for hours thinking, worrying or feeling stressed, so I take sleeping pills so I can function the next day. I've been taking them on and off for six years, whether it's an antihistamine, over-the-counter medication, or something prescribed. It makes me feel good to have them around - as a sort of crutch.

I try not to take them every day as they're addictive and I don't want to become too reliant on them, and I don't know enough about what the effects of long-term use are, but I take them a good three times a week. And the older I get, the less over-the-counter stuff works for me.

I don't take sleeping pills on the weekends because I don't feel the same pressure to have a good night's sleep, but during the week I need six hours, if not more, because I have to get up at 4.45 in the morning. If I don't sleep for a couple of days I feel really ragged, it affects my personality, my mental health, and every area of my life, so having them makes me feel there's some recourse for me.

The Sleepwalker

Debby Colburn, 34, carer, Marlborough

When I was 13 or 14 I vividly remember my parents coming downstairs one morning and finding all the doors unlocked and it was then we realised I must have walked downstairs in the middle of the night and unlocked them in my sleep.

More recently I've been waking up by the bedroom window with the curtain open, or at the window in the front room. I feel so stupid when I realise that I've been sleep walking and think, "Why on earth have I done this?" It can be embarrassing. If I walk out of the bedroom door and suddenly wake up, quite often my husband wakes up too and asks me where I'm going, so I just say, "Oh I've just been to the loo," knowing full well that I've been walking in my sleep.

At work sometimes we have to do sleep-ins at the residential homes. I am responsible for looking after people and I worry that I could end up locking myself out of the house and wake up in the street in my pyjamas. I don't have a clue why I do it, but sleep-walking is just part of my life now.

The Heavy Sleeper

Lawrence Weyman-Jones, 23, student, London

Since going to university I seem to have evolved into somebody who needs a lot of sleep - about 11 hours a night. Most days I wake up at about midday and when I don't get enough sleep I feel very irritable.

My girlfriend thinks that I get so much sleep that I never really wake up, and there is a certain amount of truth in that. It does take me a few hours to wake up and do stuff properly once I'm out of bed, so I'd definitely be more productive if I could get by on less sleep. If I need to get work done I have to do it during the evenings when I'd much rather be doing other things.

My girlfriend likes to get up early and do stuff at the weekends, but if I get up on a Saturday at one or two in the afternoon and we want to see an exhibition or go to a market, then it's invariably closed by the time we get there. I want to change but if I don't get lots of sleep I just have a bad day, so it's a fine balance. I'd rather just have a short good day than a long crap one.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article355086.ece

TwilightZ

Sat, Apr-08-06, 19:40

nraden

Sat, Apr-08-06, 21:53

Neil, if you're checking in here, a question. We keep our bedroom pitch black, but how is one supposed to deal with having to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night? I need a flashlight to see. Does that small amount of light for short period of time ruin everything? BTW tell you wife I love the book--and I paid more than $1.50 for it (but not much).

Howard

$1.50 is the royalty, unless you bought used or with an R on the side. The publisher is printing 100,000 of them now and 200,000 of the second book because Suzanne Somer's new book (coming in September) is all over them. Weird how that works.

Don't go to the batroom in the middle of the night, you might get eaten by a sabretoothed tiger. Seriously, don't drink anything past 6. If that doesn't work, try 5. You can go days without water, you'll be OK. The only time I wake up now is if I break that rule.

Demi

Sun, Apr-09-06, 03:34

Sleep - our new obsession

The new Western obsession is sleep - or a lack of it. Jo Revill, health editor, reveals new research that lifts the lid on how much we really need.

Sunday April 9, 2006
The Observer
London, UK

Sleep, or rather our frustration at not having enough of it, is the new health obsession. Worries about diet, pollution and exercise have given way to new anxieties about insomnia. We are told that the nation is building up a 'chronic sleep debt' because our modern lifestyles don't allow us to spend enough time in bed after a long day.

It is a new sort of epidemic, with millions being spent on sleeping pills to 'cure' those who can't drop off at night. Interrupted sleep is now one of the most common complaints aired in the GP's surgery. Everything from parenting problems to diabetes and career setbacks are blamed on a 'sleep disorder pattern' which is fuelling an industry of therapists, drugs and devices.

Now a new book by Britain's leading expert on the subject sets out our real relationship with sleep. It argues that most of us get quite enough, and that the present generation enjoys a better-quality night-time than our ancestors ever had. Instead of obsessing about sleep debt, we should realise that the key to feeling energetic and focused in the morning is what we do in the waking hours, not whether we are getting enough time with our heads on a pillow. Even those who wake up frequently at night are probably getting sufficient sleep.

Professor Jim Horne is the experts' expert when it comes to sleep research in Britain, and his views will annoy some people because he does not pander to the idea that we are all chronically deprived of sleep. But he celebrates the fact that we know so much more now about 'Nature's soft nurse' than in the past, and that it's there to enjoy: we should stop being so hung up on it. Sleep is now something, finally, we can understand. As mornings become lighter and Easter approaches, many of us find ourselves waking early. Long before the alarm clock goes off, you're opening your eyes, reacting to the combination of early sunlight and the April dawn chorus. But how is the body able to fine-tune itself so exactly to the seasons when we live in such a hectic, technology-driven world?

The last 10 days would suggest that we are hopelessly out of synch, given the plethora of stories warning of the dangers of sleeplessness. The New York Times said that insomnia was pushing thousands more people into taking prescribed drugs for the condition amid concern that younger people are finding it particularly hard to doze off. The British Association of Counselling is reported as saying that 12 million people have at least three bad nights of sleep a week. Then the RAC warned that sleepy drivers were responsible for 20,000 crashes last year.

Horne wants to change the tone of the debate, arguing that the human body adjusts to different sleep patterns with great agility. This is because our lives are governed by a body clock which affects not only the timing of sleep but also the different levels of alertness or lethargy. These 'circadian rhythms', which govern our moods and energy levels, are set by the body clock, which in turn is synchronised by sunset and sunrise, and also by more modern cues such as artificial light, the alarm clock, even the daily addiction to a particular TV soap.

But this timepiece, which in prehistoric times would allow us to rise early to have the best chances of survival and hunting, can be shifted by our own irregular lifestyles. For example, a very bad night's sleep will affect your level of alertness so that by 10am, when you would normally be awake and highly receptive to people around you, you will still be in a sleepy phase. Afternoon sleepiness is an entirely natural phase of the body clock, and is the human way of getting through the day. 'Some people think that because they feel tired in the afternoon something is wrong with them, but that is not at all the case,' said Horne. 'It's a natural dip in the day.'

The afternoon siesta is still common in hotter countries but is something that might benefit people in cold climes too. Winston Churchill was a proponent of the afternoon kip, and stuck to this routine during the Second World War. Later he wrote: 'You must sleep some time between lunch and dinner, and no half-way measures. Take off your clothes and get into bed. That's what I always do. Don't think you will be doing less work because you sleep during the day. That's a foolish notion held by people who have no imagination. When the war started, I had to sleep during the day because that was the only way I could cope with my responsibilities.'

Throughout the ages, humans have regulated their sleep according to their working lives. Five centuries ago Britons enjoyed something known as 'fyrste slepe', an early evening nap. Supper usually followed, then a period of prayer or talking. People would then stay awake until the early hours of the morning, then had a five to six-hour sleep.

'It seems to me that a night of between seven and eight hours' sleep is a fairly modern western development, which is clearly linked to industrialisation,' said Horne. 'Human beings are very adaptable, and we should keep that in mind because we tend to think of these hours as sacrosanct, when in fact we are far more flexible than we like to think.'

The reality is that we probably sleep more now than our ancestors did 100 years ago. 'Increasingly you hear people talking about us all having a chronic sleep debt, and that you have to catch up with it, but I'm not sure that is true,' said Horne.

'Think back to what life was like in Dickensian times. People were working 14-hour days, six days a week, and there was no lie-in on a Sunday as you were up for church. At night they would return to bedrooms they would share with children, to beds infested with bugs, in a noisy environment. The great majority of people were not getting eight hours of uninterrupted rest. But they didn't think about it in that way, or if they did feel tired they kept quiet.'

What exactly is sleep? The myths and beliefs that have surrounded the time we spend dead to the rest of the world have always mattered to successive civilisations. Aristotle thought it resulted from the warm vapours rising from the stomach after a good meal. But that was 2000 years ago, before we had EEGs (electroencephalograms) to measure the brainwaves we emit in sleeping hours.

Sleep is far more than an absence of body movement or a closing of the eyes: it is to do with the profound changes that take place in the cortex, the part of the brain that controls all the higher functions - the intellect, the imagination, social responsibility and love. By looking at the brainwaves that emerge from this region using an EEG, scientists can study the different stages of sleep. The process may seem continuous but is actually broken up into 90-minute spells. What tends to happen is that, soon after you nod off, you will go into a deep sleep. The brainwaves alter in their height and number, and move from becoming 'small ripples to large rollers', as Horne puts it. 'These deep waves, affecting your levels of consciousness, enable the body to block out external noises and movement and to maintain sleep, and will make up between 10 and 20 per cent of a night's sleep for a typical adult. It usually happens in the first half of the night.'

Much research has gone into the stage of sleep known as REM (rapid eye movement) first identified in 1955. The name is rather a misnomer, because during this time the eyes are mostly not moving at all. The rapid jerky movements under the eyelid first described by Professor GT Ladd in 1892 were associated with dreaming. In fact, the most vivid and intense dreams do occur during the REM period, but in the rest of sleep you also dream, although the images tend to be milder and more reflective.

Dreams are created in the cortex, but REM derives from a much deeper part of the brain which seems less connected with thought processing and more to do with memory storage and wakefulness. 'Some have compared this stage to a screen-saver on a computer - it's the mode into which the brain can retreat when it is in a state of non-wakefulness,' said Horne.

'We know that sleep looks after many, many processes which affect your personality, your memory, your thoughts, your feelings - really everything that makes you human and able to function. The many studies on sleep deprivation show us that these fragments of who you are start to break down once you take away essential rest.'

What is exciting new interest - and what few of us realise - is that the amount of deep, beneficial sleep you get really depends on the amount of time you have previously spent awake. It seems the deep waves are crucial for enabling the cortex to recover its powers, or 'recharge' before it can cope with the next day. A fairly new discovery is that there are very slow waves within this deep sleep that appear to be particularly important for the brain and affect the workload that the cortex can deal with during waking hours. But someone who regularly sleeps for just five hours can enjoy the same amount of deep sleep as the person who has nine hours a night - and there is no research to suggest that one is less alert or energetic than the other.

We think of insomnia as a modern condition, as a state created by the internet and constant news coverage and 24-hour cafes. The film Lost In Translation, starring Bill Murray as an exhausted actor unable to sleep in his Tokyo hotel, conveys the sense of weariness with modern pressures. His exhaustion is expressed by the boredom and frustration of his situation, and a desire to escape.

But is it really anything new? 'The hurry and excitement of modern life is held to be responsible for much of the insomnia of which we hear; and most of the articles and letters are full of good advice to live more quietly and of platitudes concerning the harmfulness of rush and worry. The pity of it is that so many people are obliged to lead a life of anxiety and high tension.' This statement comes from the British Medical Journal but was written in September 1894. It entirely conveys what most people feel is the truth now about life in Britain.

Everyone has had the experience of trying to go off to sleep, only to find that their mind is still buzzing and that the more they try, the harder it is to find rest. But Horne's research in Loughborough has shown that most people don't take that long to doze off. The period of time measured from the 'lights out' moment to nodding off is around 10 to 30 minutes, although in 25 per cent of cases it can take longer than that. There is an interesting difference between the sexes. After the age of 50, men report falling asleep much faster - averaging about 13 minutes compared with 22 for women. It appears to be older women who have most problems in getting off to sleep.

Most of us go to bed between 11pm and midnight, although women tend to go somewhat earlier than men. There are, however, people who survive well on five hours' sleep and also those who need nine hours. The average daily sleep over the past 40 years turns out to be between seven and seven and a half hours, across the West. What is more, the human being's ability to sleep in virtually any circumstances is well documented in history. The phrase 'hangover' does not come from some alcohol-related source but from the bedtime tradition in Victorian workhouses. Workers lined up along a bench and a rope was tied from one end to the other, allowing them to sleep by draping their arms over the rope which they 'hung over' as it supported them.

Horne, who has carried out research on thousands of volunteers at his sleep laboratory, believes that, although around one-quarter of the population may feel they get insufficient sleep, there is very little firm evidence to support this. Tests measuring cognitive performance show that when people have lost two hours a night, it does not affect ability to perform tasks. 'Much of the insomnia is self-diagnosed, and it's easier to take a patient's word for it and prescribe tablets than to sort out whether they are really sleep-deprived,' he said. 'When a whole society starts to think it has a chronic sleep debt, then you are going to increase the problems. A lot of sleepiness is more imagined than real.'

But there are many who argue against Horne when he questions the whole idea of a sleep debt. Professor Russell Foster, an expert in circadian rhythms at Imperial College London, said: 'A few days of not getting enough sleep won't harm you, but there is a cumulative effect that you see, and there is evidence that it can affect your cognitive performance. I think western societies are increasingly 24/7, increasingly sleep-deprived and increasingly reliant on stimulants. Why is it that the second most traded commodity after oil is coffee beans? Because we can keep ourselves awake for longer. The problem comes at weekends when we then want to relax but find it hard, so we use alcohol and sedatives to do so. Yet sleep is more important than ever to us, because in Britain we don't have a manufacturing base any more, we are reliant on our creative processes, and for individuals to come up with really novel ideas and decisions, they need to enjoy regular, good-quality sleep. There's no getting away from it.'

The struggle to get enough sleep is one of the most common complaints of modern life, and like everything else it therefore demands 'a quick fix'. More than £20m a year is spent in Britain on sleeping pills, but these are short-term therapies which usually stop working after four weeks and can be difficult to withdraw from. The older benzodiazepine drugs have left thousands of people dependent on them, although they carry side effects and do nothing to sort out the problems of insomnia.

Back in the Eighties, when doctors worked gruelling 90-hour weeks, there were many accounts of accidents and errors made by clinicians who were too tired to think properly. The results of such long hours without rest led to a big change in working patterns, and finally to the European Working Time Directive, which now means that no one must work more than a week without a break.

One doctor who remembers what it felt like to be so tired is Sarah Marwick, who now works as a GP in Birmingham. 'Like all junior [doctors], I had to work shifts in Accident and Emergency for six months, and I felt constantly drained, and a feeling of jet lag the whole time. I felt under par continuously, which made me very stressed and irritable. At the end of a 36-hour shift I felt I was drunk. I couldn't concentrate, felt like I had to work hard and really think to get words out.'

Marwick, who shared her experiences with other doctors on the online forum Doctorsnet.org.uk, found that on a number of occasions she would be asked the next morning about something she had done the previous night at the end of a long period on call, and she would have no recollection of it, or even having been to the ward, or giving intravenous drugs.

'But the scariest time was when I fell asleep while driving home after a weekend on call. I was sitting at a traffic light in the city centre and I must have dozed off. A man had to come and knock on the car window and wake me up, and he said he had been beeping his horn and I had not moved for a good three minutes. It could have been fatal.'

For doctors at least, those long working hours have been reduced, as they have in other professions with new European rules. The irony is that, as our working hours lessen, we feel more tired than ever, perhaps because of all the other tasks that we impose on ourselves in our spare time. In the desperate desire for more sleep, an entire industry has grown up around the problem - university departments, journals, academics and clinics as well as a 'National Sleep Awareness Week' are there to make us aware of the problem. And so are the breathing masks, the nose pillows, the aromatherapy solutions and sleep clinics.

Even the people who started the research in laboratories, such as Jim Horne, are aware of the dilemma. One of them is Dr William Dement, who runs the Sleep Disorders Clinic at Stanford University in California and founded the concept of sleep medicine decades ago in the US. 'Nutrition, fitness and now sleep,' he told the New York Times recently. 'Twenty-five years ago, everyone started jogging and worried about their fitness. Now sleep is having its moment.'

Perchance to dream

Sleep is an altered state of consciousness, as opposed to an unconscious state. It allows the brain to undergo a complex recovery process, and as the brain 'winds down' into sleep mode, you physically become less aware of the surroundings.

Sleep is the regular state of natural rest observed in all mammals, birds and fish, and is characterised by a reduction in voluntary body movement.

The circadian rhythms which govern the body clock, and hormonal and environmental factors all affect your ability to sleep.

Sleep appears to perform a restorative function for the brain and body, and we know this because of the many symptoms of personality and behaviour change which are seen when humans and other animals are deprived of it.

Sleep is also a time for healing and growth. When you go into deep, or slow-wave sleep, growth hormone levels increase, and changes in immune function occur. In babies, sleep is essential for processing new information about the environment.

One process known to be highly dependent on sleep is memory. REM (rapid eye movement) sleep appears to help with the consolidation of spatial and procedural memory, which is the long-term memory of acquired skills essential for surviving in the modern world.

But another view is that sleep serves an evolutionary function in simply protecting people during the hours of night, at a time when roaming around would place the individual at greatest risk, according to some experts. Organisms don't require 24 hours to feed themselves and meet all other necessities, so they are safer asleep and out of harm's way.

They sleep, therefore, at times that maximise their safety, given their differing physical capacities and their various habitats.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1750064,00.html

nraden

Sun, Apr-09-06, 15:18

The most interesting part of that article is that there is no biology in it. They talk about cognitive deficit, for example, but not metabolic derangement.

Here's a fact - shift workers have the highest incidence of cancer. http://www.bccrc.ca/ccr/mborugia_shiftWork.html

-N

CGraff

Mon, Apr-10-06, 15:32

Neil,
if you sleep in total darkness with blackout shades, how does your body know when its morning? I used to like to wake up with the sun coming in my east window.

nraden

Mon, Apr-10-06, 15:54

Your internal clock knows. As the morning homones rise and the sleeping hormones fall. I just don't remember which is which. They work in pairs: melatonin, seratonin, prolactin and cortisol.

Demi

Thu, Apr-13-06, 02:29

The Independent
London, UK

Could you be suffering from 'social jet lag'?
If you spend most of your life feeling like you've just stepped off a long-haul flight, you could be suffering from 'social jet lag'. Kate Hilpern reports
Published: 11 April 2006

It might be the middle of the day and I might be drowning in paperwork, but sometimes it's all I can do to resist sneaking forty winks into my afternoon routine. I'm not alone, it seems. More than half the population is in a permanent state of jet lag because our body clocks are so out of synch with the demands of modern life, and a new study has pinpointed some disturbing consequences of the condition.

"Social jet lag", a term coined by the researchers, can hit you even if your commute is more akin to travelling from Lewisham to Leicester Square than from Stansted to the States. But the effect is the same because your body clock is screaming one thing (that you should be in bed, for example) whereas the outside world says something else (that you should be in a meeting or getting the kids to school).

"Getting up in the morning and going to bed at night is not just a pure reaction to sunset and sunrise," explains Professor Till Roenneberg, who headed up the team of researchers at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. "It's also down to your genes, which can determine how much of a night owl or early bird you are."

The distribution of owls and larks across the population is huge, he says, with a spread of more than 12 hours between people's natural rhythms. This means that if left to their own devices, the first lark would bounce out of bed well before the last owl nods off. This, of course, doesn't fit comfortably with most work routines, with the inevitable result that a lot of people wind up feeling fatigued.

Add to this the fact that we're working longer hours than ever and you'll see why social jet lag affects more than 50 per cent of us - especially when you learn that people who are stuck inside an office during daylight hours are the worst affected. "Bright light can help shift even the most extreme body clocks," says Professor Roenneberg. "But the amount of light in most offices is laughable. You would be lucky to get 400 lux [a unit of measurement of the intensity of light] at a bright vertical office window during the day, whereas outside on a cloudy day in summer you would experience more like 10,000 lux. If it's a blue sky, you could get as much as 150,000 lux."

For night owls, this is particularly bad news. The most natural response is to race out of work to enjoy the last of the sunlight, which only serves to reinforce the late body clock and make them feel groggy again the next morning.

Most worrying of all is that general tiredness is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the effects of social jet lag. "Your daytime vigilance is lower, which means that if you work, you may not focus on your job properly," says Professor Roenneberg. "We also found that people with social jet lag sleep more poorly and are more prone to suffering from stress and depression."

Then there's the impact on physical health. Indeed, actual jet lag - which has the same affect on the body - increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, certain cancers and other conditions. The British Dietetic Association adds that tiredness commonly leads to laziness about eating healthily. A spokesperson says: "Some people who are tired crave certain foods like fat or sugar, while others don't feel like eating at all. The outcome of any of these behaviours is that your body isn't getting the nutrition it needs to function at its best and you are also more prone to illness."

Professor Roenneberg's study even found that social jet lag can drive people to smoke. Seventy per cent of the night owls in the study were smokers, compared to just 10 per cent of people whose working lives fitted with their body clocks. These people tend to opt - usually subconsciously - for the stimulant effect of cigarettes just to get through the day, which carries a whole host of additional health risks.

"You could argue that night owls are more likely to smoke because they like being up until late and are therefore more likely to be in places like pubs and clubs, where smoking is commonplace," he says. "But if that were the case, you'd expect people who stay up late to smoke more than smokers who don't have problems with sleep timing. That is not the case. We can only conclude that people with social jet lag use smoking as self-medication," he says.

The study also claims to provide enlightenment on why most people take up smoking in their teens. "It's no coincidence that most people start smoking between 14 and 20 years old, when the body clock is at its latest ever," he says.

Throughout childhood and adolescence, he explains, the time we head for the bedroom, and get up in the morning, shifts to later, peaking at around age 20 before it starts creeping back again. By the time you've hit your twilight years and traded in your blond bob for a blue rinse, you're likely to prefer getting up as early as you did when you were a young child. "I'm not saying social jet lag is the only reason people take up smoking," says Professor Roenneberg. "There are clearly other issues like peer pressure and genetics. But if you suffer from social jet lag, you are probably more prone to become a smoker, and if you continue to suffer from social jet lag, you are probably going to find it harder to quit."

Professor Dirk-Jan Dijk, director of the Surrey Sleep Research Centre, agrees. "We already know that shift workers - who desynchronise their sleeping patterns more than anyone - smoke more than the average population, so these new findings make absolute sense," he says.

He also agrees with Professor Roenneberg that there may be a solution to social jet lag. "There is something to be said for the idea that making school schedules fit in with adolescents' natural rhythms would make youngsters more productive," he says.

Likewise, making work schedules more flexible could enable bosses to get more out of their employees. Some employers have already taken action by encouraging staff to take catnaps in a "ready bed" (a roll-up bed specially designed for use in the office) which is generally placed in a darkened corner of a meeting room. Meanwhile, a dedicated sleeping lounge has just opened at the top of the Empire State Building in New York to enable executives to catch up on some shut-eye during the working day.

But Professor Dijk believes such attempts are misguided when it comes to tackling social jet lag. Taking a nap can help, but there's as much chance that it will make you feel worse. The key for employers, he believes, is to make working hours more flexible overall so that people can have their main sleep when it best suits their body clock.

Hopeful larks and owls may have a long wait, however, particularly if their bosses concede to Jim Horne's views on the subject. The sleep expert from Loughborough University isn't convinced social jet lag even exists. "Yes, some people are more inclined to be alert in the evenings and others in the mornings. But to suggest that there is something wrong with them - that they are jet lagged - seems absurd," he says.

In fact, there are advantages to their state, he says. "Think of the expression, 'the early bird catches the worm'. Morning types up at the crack of dawn may get the best opportunities in terms of work. Meanwhile, owls who tend to go to bed later may be better socialisers because most social activities happen in the evenings."

The symptoms

Do you: Long for a lie-in - or have a lie-in - of several hours every weekend?

Regularly turn to the stimulants of cigarettes, coffee etc just to keep you functioning during the day?

Find yourself regularly wanting to go to bed much earlier or later than other people you know, and often feel "out of synch" with the world?

Frequently dream of having a siesta - and sometimes take the opportunity to take a nap during the day?

Feel groggy most mornings when you get to work and take a long time to "get going"?

How to beat social jet lag

Retrain your body clock: If you're a night owl, go for a morning walk, and wear sunglasses after 4pm. Conversely, early birds should make the most of the sunlight lasting later into the evenings.

Get into a regular sleeping pattern: Night owls who make the most of lying in for a few extra hours at weekends will delay their body clock and wind up feeling groggy on Monday and Tuesday.

Avoid stimulants: Don't drink caffeine or alcohol before bed, and while exercise will help you sleep, make sure you're finished three hours before bedtime.

Don't smoke: Smoking can interfere with our sleeping patterns. So while you might smoke to keep yourself awake you'll actually worsen your social jet lag.

Get a job that suits your rhythms: Larks make great postal workers, while working in a nightclub will suit serious owls. Or, convince your boss that you'll work more productively around your natural sleeping patterns.

Sleep well: Dr Adrian Williams, who runs the sleep centre at St Thomas' Hospital in London, says: "We are a sleep-deprived society. The average amount of sleep needed by adults is 8.1 hours, yet most of us only get around seven."

Use light therapy: If natural light is hard to come by, £100 can buy a mobile source.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article357119.ece

cbcb

Thu, Apr-13-06, 08:36

Daylight savings time is for the birds

nraden

Thu, Apr-13-06, 10:17

The Independent
London, UK

Could you be suffering from 'social jet lag'?
Sleep well: Dr Adrian Williams, who runs the sleep centre at St Thomas' Hospital in London, says: "We are a sleep-deprived society. The average amount of sleep needed by adults is 8.1 hours, yet most of us only get around seven."

Except that he hasn't thought about seasonality, he seems to get it. Susie says 9.5 in the winter, 8 in the summer. The bit about sunglasses after 4PM is something she recommends too, only she suggests red ones because the red light brings up something, melatonin I think. I wonder if he's familiar with the book? I haven't heard any other researchers talk about the sunglasses and the 8+ hours.

Nancy LC

Thu, Apr-13-06, 10:29

I can't figure out how to sleep 8 hours, much less 9.5. I'm always waking up too early.

Daylight savings time is for the birds

Yeah! This time change messes me up for several weeks every year.

PaleoDeano

Thu, Apr-13-06, 11:33

Don't go to the batroom in the middle of the night, you might get eaten by a sabretoothed tiger. Seriously, don't drink anything past 6. If that doesn't work, try 5. You can go days without water, you'll be OK. The only time I wake up now is if I break that rule.I use to get up EVERY night like clock work... UNTIL eliminating all carbs from my diet. Now, I sleep soundly through the night. I think it has a lot to do with the process the body is going through to turn all that glucose into fat. Also, Neil is correct... if cutting carbs does not help completely, then don't drink as much water in the hours before bedtime.

TwilightZ

Thu, Apr-13-06, 13:41

I use to get up EVERY night like clock work... UNTIL eliminating all carbs from my diet. Now, I sleep soundly through the night. I think it has a lot to do with the process the body is going through to turn all that glucose into fat. Also, Neil is correct... if cutting carbs does not help completely, then don't drink as much water in the hours before bedtime.

For me it has to do with drinking water. Even when I ate vegetables, the amount was minimal, it was mostly cellulose, and was smothered in butter. The problem is that even eating only unseasoned, lightly cooked meat, it makes me thirsty and I find it difficult to resist the body's call for water. Maybe this will change in time. And I guess this means soup is out, at least at night--I really like egg drop soup.

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Apr-13-06, 18:42

Well I finished reading the book today.
I had thought I was only half way through till I realized half the book was like references ;).

I have a gazillion questions, but, for simplicity (and the fact I am too lazy to go get everything I noted) I'll just ask a few that are on my forebrain right now...

1) Artificial sweeteners. Wiley says all except saccharin cause insulin release. If this is true why do I not experience a hypoglycemic reaction from artificially sweetened eggs & cheese (i.e. cheesecake)?
Sometimes I get a "rush" feeling that forebodes blood sugar problems when eating my "sweet egg" type meals. However, my metabolism *always* behaves as if I ate eggs and cheese soon thereafter. I never, ever get a hypoglycemic reaction and am more likely to get one from large quantities of skinny protein and too much caffeine, than I am from sweet cheese and eggs (proper balance of fat, protein, and low carbs).

2) She says sorbitol is "really really bad stuff". Why?

3) Why is coffee okay? I thought that was a little funny. Caffiene does horrible things to my blood sugar. The woman wants us to sleep 9.5 hrs nightly with duct tape over our alarm clocks but a blood sugar spiking, adrenal gland taxing substance like coffee is given the okay?
I guess even she has her vices :lol:

4) She claims carbs are the only food that release insulin, but this is not correct as all macronutrients convert to blood sugar in varying degrees (in protein the insulin release is significant as is the blood sugar impact).
Lots of very blood sugar/insulin sensitive people find that we must eat a very high fat diet and watch protein as well in order for an ideal state of being. If I eat a great deal of lean meat it affects me similarly as a smaller amount of carbs.
With that said, does she say this to simply a complex idea (that its carbs causing obesity)... or, does she truly believe that carbs are the only macronutrient to affect insulin, thus, fat storage?

5) The "high serotonin" personality cited around page 92ish of the book does not sound like many obese people I know. Those behaviors/feelings of anxiety and depression tend to (stereotypically) go hand in hand with reduced appetite and thinness.
Yet, she says that a high serotonin state cannot coexist with a normal (low) insulin state. How do I reconcile these statements with what I know of fact?

Example. I know in myself, I get like the "high serotonin stereotype" predominantly when I put myself under physical and emotional stress - NOT from carbs. Carbs do make me emotionally miserable, but, in a different way. I become bi-polar alternating between periods of feeling "okay" and periods of feeling terrible. My energy is low (probably because of malnutrition), but NOT my drive for pleasure and general "desire" for life. Carbs do not make me exhibit signs of anxiety, "rigid" behaviors (ocd), or a lack of desire/motivation for pleasure characteristic of depression in anxiety.

In other words, carbs alone do not cause the kind of psychological/behavioral profile outlined. They definitely do something to my mind but not that. I have not commonly observed this in other obese people, either (implying my experience is common).

On the other hand, I do notice LOTS of thin people with poor appetites like that. In fact the only time I ever became that way was, ironically, when I took my diet too extreme and was underfed and underweight. I reason it had something to do with the stress of it. I have seen this happen in others who go to far with diets as well, and, I've seen people become that way in response to other types of stress too (emotional and physical). An underweight underfed person cannot possibly have high insulin.

THe only way I can reconcile this is if I reason that the high serotonin state created from blood sugar spikes (coexisting with hyperinsulinemia) has a very different physiological effect than a high serotonin state created by pure stress (without hyperinsulinemia). While it is true that any insulin reducing activity (e.g. undereating) will also reduce serotonin, however, it is simply untrue that carbohydrate is always the catalyst for a high serotonin state. So you cannot say "serotonin dominance cannot happen without high insulin". Therefore, it is erroneous to absolutely link metabolic syndrome/hyperinsulinemia/carbs with anxiety and depression... in fact, obesity and weight (drive for pleasure, for food, to eat, hunger and appetite) usually do not jive with anxiety and depression symptomatically speaking.

6) If I oversleep sometimes I feel extremely lethargic all day, as if I didn't sleep much at all. Also, my sense of time perception goes crazy (like it will be 3 pm and I'll have an overwhelming feeling that it's more like 7 or 8). Just a few days ago I got nearly 11 hrs of sleep and this occurred.
When I sleep more "normally" for me (between 7 (low) and 9.5 (high) hours) this never happens. If I get a few days in a row of normal sleep, plus, normal exposure to daylight, my internal rhythms become such that I know exactly what time it is when I wake up.
Do you think the absolute number of hours you sleep is as important as sleeping (and being in the sun) so as to get your "clock" working? I would think that would be a far more reliable guide than trying to "force" sleep.

7) She makes the suggestion that artificial lights are as disruptive of rhythms as natural light; I really strongly disagree. I do think they have an effect but it is NOTHING like noonday sun.
If I sit out in noonday sun more often for a few days in a row all my rhythms are thrown out of wack - everything about my body is affected very strongly by changes in sunlight (especially my sense of time). For example, I've been doing a lot of walking lately under the bright sun. It's 8:37 pm now but I have no sense of this; I feel very stimulated and active and a sense of a new day the way I might feel at noon. I feel "blitzed" if that makes sense.
Number of hours I spend in front of the comp/TV with a big bright light in front of me does not seem to have as strong of an effect. It takes a loooot of hours staying inside holed up on the computer before I start notice any changes in my perception of time and well being (and that very well could be related to isolation and stimulus deprivation as much as the light of the computer :lol: ).

Thats it for now :)