Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


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!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > Paleolithic & Neanderthin
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #331   ^
Old Fri, Sep-14-07, 10:59
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lené
I have serious questions when it comes to the science behind some of the claims in this book,


Like?

(The thread you directed us to contains an awful lot of junk, although I did learn quite a bit about salt.)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #332   ^
Old Sat, Sep-15-07, 14:22
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

I'll have to check this one out. It sounds a lot like Sugar Blues by William Dufty.
Reply With Quote
  #333   ^
Old Sun, Sep-16-07, 13:16
lené's Avatar
lené lené is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 696
 
Plan: fat, fat, fat
Stats: 225/212/160 Female 5' 3.5"
BF:
Progress: 20%
Location: US midwest
Default

Heh, the thread over there is like most threads on most forums I've seen -- some good stuff interspersed with jabber. I provide lots of the latter myself, at times, so I won't knock it. <g>

I want to reiterate that I do believe in the value of sleep, and I obviously believe in eating lowcarb foods, although I know people who do well on other diets. So it isn't that I disagree with everything in the book. But I dislike having to wade through hyperbole when what I want is solid science to back up the claims being made -- the "we're gonna die!!!" stuff puts me right off, for one thing. Claiming that sleeping in light will bring the human race to extinction is just too overblown for me, and it leaves me wondering what other claims are BS...

For example, when the book states that humans, "like every other animal," were born to hunt in the light, I have to ask, do they know nothing of basic zoology? There are *lots* of animals who are nocturnal predators. Why go for the overblown rhetoric in order to prove your point? By doing so, they make me distrust their science and their claims.

And since Paleolithic peoples lived in differing climates and latitudes, they lived with different seasons, with differing hours of sunlight. How to extrapolate from this that we *all* need this recommended 9.5 hours? And what on earth is with the idea that it needs to be in utter blackness? I sincerely doubt that every one of those ancient ancestors slept buried away so deeply that no rays of moonlight or starlight could touch them, and I also very much doubt that, with the dangers surrounding them, they did so without fire burning at hand throughout the night. I just see no reason the believe that the light from my digital clock could disrupt my body processes so severely if the light from a "safety fire burning nearby would not.

And this also seems to not properly address the question of latitude, and how on earth the paleo ancestors who lived in regions where they received extended seasons of daylight and darkness could have survived unscathed.

To say nothing of the fact that using scare tactics like shouting "Extinction!" over and over again leads me to think of the old tale of the boy who cried wolf. Hmmm... I don't respond well to scare tactics, whether they are being used by authors of a book on diet and sleep, or the government. <g>

And gee, if sleeping exposed to an LED is gonna make us extinct, then it would surely have to kill us all off before we have a chance to do bouncy-bouncy, because once we manage to procreate (and most of us do manage it more than once) then the whole chance to wipe out the species seems to be disappearing. So why not just focus on the health benefits of sufficient sleep, and of eating fewer carbs, and leave out the wacky conspiracy theories and overblown fright tactics? I'd have been more inclined to take the authors seriously if that had been the approach they took.

I also, as a side note, dislike it when I find out people have made claims to degrees or other "credentials" and then later find out that those claims are false. It isn't that I believe everyone with a degree must *certainly* be a better source for information than someone without a degree -- it simply comes down to whether I can trust what the person says. Credibility and honesty and all that. I also have seen TS Wiley's hubby post on several places on the 'net (forums, etc.) praising this book and her other work without ever mentioning, until/unless someone else brings it up first, that he is her husband. That sort of duplicity sits poorly with me. Why refer to her always as "Wiley" and act like he is a disinterested party? If he believes strongly in her work and supports it (and as her hubby, good for him) then I'd think he would want to be open about who he is.

Again, I'm simply disappointed in the book. I have been making a point of trying to get more sleep, though, and continue to look for other solid sources of science behind the connections between sleep and health in general. And if this book, shaky as I find it in some ways, helps anyone here work harder at getting more sleep, then it's a good thing.

Now, I'll hope this post finally makes it to the forum -- my blasted computer has cut out on me three times during the writing of this post. I do apologize if it seems disjointed as a result. And I'm hoping I'm not going to be computer-less for a while, although the signs seem to be ominous. Damn!

Lene'
Reply With Quote
  #334   ^
Old Sun, Sep-16-07, 20:47
ProteusOne's Avatar
ProteusOne ProteusOne is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,320
 
Plan: Paleo/Low Cal
Stats: 000/000/200 Male 5 ft 10 in
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: NC, USA
Default

Lene, you're logic is one of the highlights for my perusing these forums. I too was a little put off by the crying wolf, and the idea that even something so minimal as my stove light downstairs could be somehow harming my sleep and ultimately cause my extinction. Good review.
Reply With Quote
  #335   ^
Old Mon, Sep-17-07, 09:41
lené's Avatar
lené lené is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 696
 
Plan: fat, fat, fat
Stats: 225/212/160 Female 5' 3.5"
BF:
Progress: 20%
Location: US midwest
Default

I was really hesitant to post about it, to be honest, and then after I'd sent off that first post, I kicked myself for hours. I hate getting into arguments, and I hoped like heck that wasn't what would result. I think the main reason why the book bothered me was because I see potential for good science and good advice there, but it's being overwhelmed by the other stuff. If I'd thought it was all foo-foo, it wouldn't have bothered me at all -- I'd have just written it off as flakiness.

Thanks for not being upset with me about my qualms. Some people really do love a good flame war, but I've too old and have seen too many of them, and I hesitate to post anything I think may start one. But I visit the Paleo section of the forum all the time because I love what you all have to say, and I had hope that I could present a dissenting voice here and not start a big hoohaw. What a relief!

Lene'
Reply With Quote
  #336   ^
Old Mon, Sep-17-07, 12:33
Michelle H Michelle H is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 174
 
Plan: modified Atkins
Stats: 230/150/165 Female 69 inches
BF:22% (calipers)
Progress: 123%
Location: New Zealand
Default

One thing about that this whole "sleep in the pitch dark" theory seems to ignore (haven't read the book or the whole thread) is the moon. It's pretty bright when it's full .....
Reply With Quote
  #337   ^
Old Tue, Sep-25-07, 09:53
TwilightZ's Avatar
TwilightZ TwilightZ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 359
 
Plan: meat and meat by-products
Stats: 270/191/150 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: TwilightZone (Phila, PA)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle H
One thing about that this whole "sleep in the pitch dark" theory seems to ignore (haven't read the book or the whole thread) is the moon. It's pretty bright when it's full .....

You wouldn't see it when you were in your cave.
Reply With Quote
  #338   ^
Old Tue, Sep-25-07, 10:03
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

How often did paleolithic people actually live in caves? Seems like most of the HG groups that were discovered in the last 100 years made themselves some sort of shelters.

And cave or no cave, I'm sure they probably have to get up and night and pee or see to their children. That'd be really hard to do without any sort of light.
Reply With Quote
  #339   ^
Old Tue, Sep-25-07, 10:43
nomentanus nomentanus is offline
New Member
Posts: 2
 
Plan: own
Stats: 155/155/155 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default What about the Moon? - Reply

Replying to>>>
One thing about that this whole "sleep in the pitch dark" theory seems to ignore (haven't read the book or the whole thread) is the moon. It's pretty bright when it's full .....

Nevermind caves, and the huts we've lived in for ages - Europe, where our genes are from is notoriously cloudy. That's why (according to my Physical Anthropology professor) we have white skin to begin with.

Also, our ipRGCs (see photoperiodeffect.com for more on these critical, newly discovered light sensors in our eyes) are likely programmed to ignore highly narrow, sole and unreflected light sources at night, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #340   ^
Old Thu, Oct-25-07, 07:57
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,758
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Brain study: Sleepy, grumpy and ... primitive?

Reuters
24 October, 2007

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A few nights without sleep can not only make people tired and emotional, but may actually put the brain into a primitive "fight or flight" state, researchers said on Wednesday.

Brain images of otherwise healthy men and women showed two full days without sleep seemed to rewire their brains, re-directing activity from the calming and rational prefrontal cortex to the "fear center" -- the amygdala.

"It's almost as though, without sleep, the brain had reverted back to more primitive patterns of activity, in that it was unable to put emotional experiences into context and produce controlled, appropriate responses," said Matthew Walker of the University of California Berkeley, who led the study.

That a lack of sleep can make people grumpy is hardly news. "We all know implicitly the link between bad sleep the night before and bad mood the next day. We are just adding the brain basis to what we knew," Walker said in a telephone interview.

Walker and colleagues at Harvard Medical School used functional magnetic resonance imaging, which can scan brain activity in real time, to see what was going on in the brains of their 26 young adult volunteers.

Half were kept awake for a day, a night and another full day. The other half slept as normal.

Writing in the journal Current Biology, Walker's team said they noticed profound changes in the brain activity of those volunteers who stayed up.

"We found a strong overreaction from the emotional centers of the brain," Walker said. "It was almost as if the brain had been rewired, and connected to the fright, flight or fight area in the brain stem."

SWINGING LIKE A PENDULUM

And lab workers noticed a difference in the behavior of the sleep-deprived volunteers.

"They seemed to swing like a pendulum between the broad spectrum of emotions," Walker said. "They would go from being remarkably upset at one time to where they found the same thing funny. They were almost giddy -- punch drunk."

Next Walker wants to test people who are chronically sleep-deprived, perhaps by letting them have just 5 hours of sleep over several days. The average adult needs 7 to 9 hours of sleep a night.

He said the findings may shed light on psychiatric diseases. "This is the first set of experiments that demonstrate that even healthy people's brains mimic certain pathological psychiatric patterns when deprived of sleep."

"Before, it was difficult to separate out the effect of sleep versus the disease itself. Now we're closer to being able to look into whether the person has a psychiatric disease or a sleep disorder."

A second study in the same journal suggests daylight-savings time regimes may cause similar effects.

Till Roenneberg of Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich, Germany examined the sleep patterns of 55,000 people in Central Europe.

He found people's internal circadian clocks adjusted well when the clock moved back in the autumn months, but failed to adjust when it moved forward, costing them an hour of sleep, in the spring.

He said the effects held for weeks, perhaps causing people to feel continually sleep-deprived in the spring and summer.



http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...462068320071024
Reply With Quote
  #341   ^
Old Thu, Oct-25-07, 09:37
ProteusOne's Avatar
ProteusOne ProteusOne is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,320
 
Plan: Paleo/Low Cal
Stats: 000/000/200 Male 5 ft 10 in
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: NC, USA
Default

Nice article. Thanks. No wonder I feel this way, then.
Reply With Quote
  #342   ^
Old Sat, Nov-24-07, 12:22
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,758
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

The Times
London, UK
24 November, 2007


Is it bye-bye to shut-eye?

Why do we need sleep? And could science soon make it a thing of the past? Roger Dobson tells a bedtime story


For 264 hours, Randy Gardner did not go to sleep. He felt tired, but each time the urge to rest his head on a pillow came upon him, he played basketball and, after 11 days and nights in January 1964, he broke the world record for sleeplessness. He thanked his supporters, held a press conference and promptly passed out.

This achievement is being celebrated 43 years later (along with other sleep-related research) at an exhibition starting next week in North London. Scientists don’t really know exactly why we sleep, but the Sleeping and Dreaming exhibition at the Wellcome Collection will raise questions about whether we need to sleep at all. As science gallops ahead, would it be possible, one day, to take a pill and banish sleep for ever?

There are conflicting theories about the purpose of sleep. But the fact that we spend about eight out of every 24 hours asleep suggests that there are powerful evolutionary reasons for its continuing existence. Most theories centre on the beneficial effects that sleep has on the brain; this is because there is little evidence of any direct physiological effects on the body. Tissue seems to repair, regenerate and grow normally during times of sleep deprivation. Some scientists believe that sleep is a time for the immune system to regenerate, while one theory suggests that sleep evolved as a way of coping with limited supplies of food.

The dominant theory is that sleep is a time for the brain to store memory. The idea is that during sleep the brain, in effect, goes offline to file the events of the day. Another theory is that the brain is a complex organ that needs the downtime provided by sleep to recover from the stresses of waking hours. “While we are awake, the higher centres of the brain are working flat out,” says Professor Jim Horne, who runs the sleep laboratory at Loughborough University. “Even when you are lying down, the brain is in a state of quiet readiness, ready to respond. The only time it can rest is during sleep.”

He adds: “Sleep is important because we know that, even when people know they will die if they go to sleep, like shipwrecked sailors or overtired pilots, they still do so. Nature has provided nothing that overrides this.’’

Under five hours sleep is unhealthy

Researchers who champion these brain theories point to the fact that behaviour changes significantly with sleeplessness. A person who is lacking sleep takes more risks, has slower mental processes and reacts to events with more emotion and less logic. One theory is that brain circuitry needs to be repaired and maintained regularly and that when this maintenance work is not carried out during sleep, the workings go awry, with communications slowing down or being wrongly routed if you don’t get enough sleep. So how much sleep do you need?

Some research suggests that while seven to eight hours a night is healthy, under five hours or more than eight is unhealthy, and linked to disorders such as heart disease, depression, diabetes and high blood pressure.

However, there are reports of people surviving on less than five hours. Margaret Thatcher is reported to have run the country on four hours a night. “Some people claim that they can survive on very little sleep,” says Professor Horne. “But when we look into it, we find that Churchill and Thatcher took naps. Churchill had four hours a night and a two-hour siesta in the afternoon with his pyjamas on.”

Could a pill banish sleep for ever?

In our busy modern lives, however, sleep can sometimes be seen as nonproductive time, and many people would love to have an extra eight hours in their day. As a result, various research projects have been looking at how sleep needs can be reduced. Many chemical compounds that keep you awake – such as amphetamines and caffeine – have been examined but, so far, there has been no discovery of a drug that can safely replace sleep.

The US military has been funding research into genes. Keen to have soldiers alert for up to 72 hours a time, army scientists have homed in on a genetic mutation that has a powerful effect on the amount of time fruit flies sleep. In a four-year study, researchers at Wisconsin University screened 9,000 mutated fruit flies and found that one group slept a third the amount of normal flies. The gene involved is called Shaker and it is concerned with the flow of potassium into cells, a process that critically affects, among other things, electrical activity in nerve cells in the brain. Potassium also seems to be involved in the generation of sleep in human beings. The discovery could, the researchers say, lead to new ways of prolonging wakefulness.

Professor Horne, who is the author of Sleep-faring: A Journey Through the Science of Sleep, is sceptical: “Some people do suggest that we could have some sort of sleep pill that we can pop into the mouth and say goodbye to sleep, but I think it is largely nonsense. There must be 100 mechanisms in the brain that integrate sleep, and the idea that such a complex process could be changed by one pill seems nonsense.’’ He points out that no one knows the long-term effects of sleep deprivation. Eleven days is the most that anyone has gone without sleep, and Randy Gardner’s doctor described him at the end as being cognitively dysfunctional. It is also known that rats die after several days of sleep deprivation. And the Wisconsin research suggests that while the fruit flies needed much less sleep, they also died at an earlier age.

Would any of us, even the most time-pressed, really swap a long life with plenty of duvet-hugging for a short, sleepless one?

The Sleeping and Dreaming exhibition, the Wellcome Collection, 183 Euston Road, London NW1, until March 10. For more information, www.wellcomecollection.org

IF YOU SLEEP FOR LESS THAN:

4 HOURS Your immune system becomes compromised. When researchers at the University of Chicago exposed sleep-deprived students – four hours a night for six nights – to flu vaccine, their immune systems produced only half the normal number of antibodies. Stress levels rose, raising heart rates and blood pressure.

5 HOURS Your risk of diabetes increases. Research at Boston University School of Medicine suggests that those who have less than five hours a night were 2.5 times more likely to develop diabetes compared with those having seven to eight. You also increase the risk of being overweight. According to research at Bristol University, the rise in obesity may be partly because of the reduced amount of time we spend asleep. People who sleep for five hours were found to have 15 per cent more ghrelin, a hormone that increases feelings of hunger, than those who slept for eight hours. They were also found to have 15 per cent less leptin, a hormone that suppresses appetite.

6 HOURS Watch out for high blood pressure. A study reported in Hypertension suggests that those who sleep less than six hours a night had more than double the risk of high blood pressure.

IF YOU’VE BEEN AWAKE FOR:

10 HOURS Levels of the stress hormone cortisol begin to rise. There may also be changes in blood pressure.

12 HOURS The likelihood of having a car accident more than doubles. Heart rate begins to slow.

17-28 HOURS Speed in mental tasks slows to the equivalent of someone who has drunk the drink-drive legal limit of alcohol.

24 HOURS Risk-taking behaviour increases. Verbal fluency declines.

48 HOURS Effectiveness of immune system declines.

53 HOURS Ability to make moral judgments declines.

72 HOURS Speed and accuracy in computer tests drop to 30 per cent of normal.

85 HOURS Brain activity declines significantly.

11 DAYS Longest documented period of voluntary sleeplessness is 264 hours. No long-term harmful effects found.

Sources: US Federal Highways Commission; University of New South Wales; University of California, San Diego; North Carolina University; Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; Johns Hopkins University


http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...icle2929815.ece
Reply With Quote
  #343   ^
Old Sun, Nov-25-07, 10:01
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

264 hours without sleep is the old record; it was broken ealier this year:
It now stands at 266 hours.
Reply With Quote
  #344   ^
Old Mon, Dec-17-07, 03:45
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,758
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Royal commission to study link between late nights and cancer

The Independent
London, UK
17 December. 2007


Royal commission to study link between late nights and cancer

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Evidence that staying up late and sleeping with the light on can cause cancer is to be examined by a royal commission.

The evidence, reported in The Independent on Sunday 18 months ago, also casts further doubt on the safety of radiation from mobile phones and electric power lines. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is to examine the impact of artificial light on health as part of a short study of its effects on the environment to be launched early next year.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the foremost international body on the disease, is considering officially labelling night-shift work as a "probable" human carcinogen, after a study found that nurses and flight attendants are more likely to develop breast cancer.

The study is only the latest among many to make the link between exposure to light at night and the disease, which affects one in 10 women and whose incidence is doubling every two decades. Besides showing that it is 60 per cent more common among night-shift workers, they have demonstrated a similar rise among women who stay up late more than two or three times a week. Conversely, totally blind women are only half as likely to contract it.

Groundbreaking research by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Environmental Health in the United States grafted human breast cancer tumours on to rats and infused them with blood taken from women during the day, in the early hours of the morning and after being exposed to light at night. The blood taken in darkness slowed the growth of the tumours by 80 per cent, while that taken after exposure to light accelerated it.

Studies have shown that the light at night interferes with melatonin, "the hormone of darkness" which is secreted by the pineal gland at night and both impedes cancers and boosts the immune system. Electromagnetic radiation, given off by power lines, mobile phones and Wi-Fi, has been found to have a similar effect.

Professor Denis Henshaw of Bristol University said that the radiation "suppresses melatonin in the same way as light does".


http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3255694.ece
Reply With Quote
  #345   ^
Old Fri, Jan-04-08, 06:35
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,758
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

From Dr John Briffa's blog:


Quote:
My New Year resolution recommendation: get some sleep

Posted By Dr John Briffa On 2nd January 2008

As it’s the New Year, some of us health-conscious souls might be turning their attention to making positive changes in our lifestyles. For some, that might mean being more active, while other may see this as a time to redouble their efforts with regard to healthy eating. However, positive lifestyle habits can sometimes be easy and effort free. For instance, getting a bit more sun exposure is likely to bring benefits for health, and is something most people find not only easy, but enjoyable too.

Another potential lifestyle change that is low on effort but might still return considerable health benefit is sleep. While the time we spend in a semi-coma each night is easy to view as wasted time, there is emerging evidence that sleep is important for the health of both body and mind.

I was reminded of this earlier this week on reading some reports of a study which assessed the effects of sleep disturbance on the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar. This study, published on-line in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been widely reported in the media, though I have not been able to trace the actual study. Apparently, it was published on-line on 31st December, though the most recent update of the PNAS on-line edition is dated 28th December. Anyway, no doubt the actual study will appear once the PNAS site is updated in due course. In the meantime, I’ve only got the reports of this study to go on.

In this study, 9 men and women aged between 20 and 31 were assessed over two nights of undisturbed sleep followed by three nights where their sleep was deliberately disrupted. Specifically, the subjects were prevented from getting into what is known as slow-wave sleep (deep sleep) by being exposed to sounds loud enough to keep them from drifting into deep sleep though not loud enough to actually wake them.

Each subject was injected with glucose solution and their blood sugar levels were monitored. After the three nights of disturbed sleep blood sugar levels were, on average, 23 per cent higher than after undisturbed sleep. Apparently, this reduced ability to handle sugar is equivalent to that that would be expected if an individual gained 9-13kg (20-30lb) in weight.

The authors of this study claim that their findings show as a clear role for slow-wave sleep in glucose control. They also suggest that strategies to improve sleep quality and quantity may help to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes.

This research is interesting, at least in part, because it comes on the back of other research which has linked sleep time with diabetes risk.

For instance, November of last year saw the publication of a Canadian study in which the sleep times and risk of diabetes was assessed in a group of about 750 men and women aged 21-64 [1]. Compared to those sleeping 7-8 ours a night (deemed ‘normal’ sleepers), those sleeping 5-6 hours a night were found to be at more than twice the risking of having type 2 diabetes or ‘impaired glucose tolerance (’IGT’ – thought be a precursor to diabetes). This study also found that those sleeping 9-10 hours a night were, compared to ‘normal’ sleepers, at increased risk of types 2 diabetes and IGT too. These findings are consistent with other research which has linked either short of long sleep times with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

It is not known how longer sleep times may boost diabetes risk, if they do at all that is. It is possible, after all, that individuals who have impaired blood sugar regulation feel the need to sleep longer. In other words, perhaps its not that long sleep times that is causing diabetes, but the other way round.

The PNAS study just out does seem to provide at least some good evidence that sleep disruption can lead directly to changes in the biochemistry and physiology of the body that could explain, at least in part, why individuals who sleep for relatively short periods each night are at generally increased risk of diabetes.

Other research has linked sleep habits with other conditions including cardiovascular disease. Back in September, I wrote about a study which showed a strong correlation between cutting back on sleep and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (and overall risk of death, as it happens).

Taking the research as a whole, it’s reasonable to believe, I think, that getting the right amount of sleep may have a very important bearing on health, just like being active and eating well may do. However, part of getting the right amount of sleep means appreciating its value, and not seeing it as wasted time. It can also mean overcoming any tendency to insomnia (see this article for some tips regarding this). And finally, sleeping for longer obviously takes a little more time - something that is a very precious commodity for most of us. See this blog post for some tips about this too. One strategy that tends to work well here is to keep the TV switched off in the evening and to get into bed that bit earlier…

References:

1. Chaput JP, et al. Association of sleep duration with type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetologia. 2007;50(11):2298-304.


http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/0...get-some-sleep/
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Cluster Buster: Might a simple sugar derail Huntington's?" gotbeer LC Research/Media 1 Mon, Jan-26-04 12:18
"Nutrition: Food Cravings" (WaPo interview with Dr. Neal Barnard) gotbeer LC Research/Media 1 Mon, Aug-11-03 13:59


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:43.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.