Polyphasic Sleep… Super-Schedule Or An Idea Best Put To Rest?

What is it?

Let’s start by defining some terms:

• Monophasic sleep—sleeping in one “chunk” per day. For example, a good night’s “normal” sleep.
• Biphasic sleep—sleeping in two “chunks” per day. Typically, a shorter night’s sleep, with a nap usually around the middle of the day / early afternoon.
• Polyphasic sleep—sleeping in two or more “chunks per day”. Some people do this in order to have more hours awake per day, to do things. The idea is that sleeping this way is more efficient, and one can get enough rest in less time. The most popular schedules used are:
  • The Überman schedule—six evenly-spaced 20-minute naps, one every four hours, throughout the 24-hour day. The name is a semi-anglicized version of the German word Übermensch, “Superman”.
  • The Everyman schedule—a less extreme schedule, that has a three-hours “long sleep” during the night, and three evenly-spaced 20-minute naps during the day, for a total of 4 hours sleep.

There are other schedules, but we’ll focus on the most popular ones here.

Want to learn about the others? Visit: Polyphasic.Net (a website by and for polyphasic sleep enthusiasts)

Some people have pointed to evidence that suggests humans are naturally polyphasic sleepers, and that it is only modern lifestyles that have forced us to be (mostly) monophasic.

There is at least some evidence to suggest that when environmental light/dark conditions are changed (because of extreme seasonal variation at the poles, or, as in this case, because of artificial changes as part of a sleep science experiment), we adjust our sleeping patterns accordingly.

The counterpoint, of course, is that perhaps when at the mercy of long days/nights at the poles, or no air-conditioning to deal with the heat of the day in the tropics, that perhaps we were forced to be polyphasic, and now, with modern technology and greater control, we are free to be monophasic.

Either way, there are plenty of people who take up the practice of polyphasic sleep.

Ok, But… Why?

The main motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is simply to have more hours in the day! It’s exciting, the prospect of having 22 hours per day to be so productive and still have time over for leisure.

A secondary motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is that when the brain is sleep-deprived, it will prioritize REM sleep. Here’s where the Überman schedule becomes perhaps most interesting:

The six evenly-spaced naps of the Überman schedule are each 20 minutes long. This corresponds to the approximate length of a normal REM cycle.

Consequently, when your head hits the pillow, you’ll immediately begin dreaming, and at the end of your dream, the alarm will go off.

Waking up at the end of a dream, when one hasn’t yet entered a non-REM phase of sleep, will make you more likely to remember it. Similarly, going straight into REM sleep will make you more likely to be aware of it, thus, lucid dreaming.

Read: Sleep fragmentation and lucid dreaming (actually a very interesting and informative lucid dreaming study even if you don’t want to take up polyphasic sleep)

Six 20-minute lucid-dreaming sessions per day?! While awake for the other 22 hours?! That’s… 24 hours per day of wakefulness to use as you please! What sorcery is this?

Hence, it has quite an understandable appeal.

Next Question: Does it work?

Can we get by without the other (non-REM) kinds of sleep?

According to Überman cycle enthusiasts: Yes! The body and brain will adapt.

According to sleep scientists: No! The non-REM slow-wave phases of sleep are essential

Read: Adverse impact of polyphasic sleep patterns in humans—Report of the National Sleep Foundation sleep timing and variability consensus panel

(if you want to know just how bad it is… the top-listed “similar article” is entitled “Suicidal Ideation”)

But what about, for example, the Everman schedule? Three hours at night is enough for some non-REM sleep, right?

It is, and so it’s not as quickly deleterious to the health as the Überman schedule. But, unless you are blessed with rare genes that allow you to operate comfortably on 4 hours per day (you’ll know already if that describes you, without having to run any experiment), it’s still bad.

Adults typically need 7–9 hours of sleep per night, and if you don’t get it, you’ll accumulate a sleep debt. And, importantly:

When you accumulate sleep debt, you are borrowing time at a very high rate of interest!

And, at risk of laboring the metaphor, but this is important too:

Not only will you have to pay it back soon (with interest), you will be hounded by the debt collection agents—decreased cognitive ability and decreased physical ability—until you pay up.

In summary:

• Polyphasic sleep is really very tempting
• It will give you more hours per day (for a while)
• It will give the promised lucid dreaming benefits (which is great until you start micronapping between naps, this is effectively a mini psychotic break from reality lasting split seconds each—can be deadly if behind the wheel of a car, for instance!)
• It is unequivocally bad for the health and we do not recommend it

Bottom line:

Some of the claimed benefits are real, but are incredibly short-term, unsustainable, and come at a cost that’s far too high. We get why it’s tempting, but ultimately, it’s self-sabotage.

(Sadly! We really wanted it to work, too…)

Pasteurization’s Effect On Risks & Nutrients

In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your health-related opinions of raw (cow’s) milk, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

• About 47% said “raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer”
• About 31% said “raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy”
• About 14% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally unhealthy”
• About 9% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally healthy”

Quite polarizing! So, what does the science say?

“Raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer: True or False?”

True! Coincidentally, the 47% who voted for this are mirrored by the 47% of the general US population in a similar poll, deciding between the options of whether raw milk is less safe to drink (47%), just as safe to drink (15%), safer to drink (9%), or not sure (30%):

Public Fails to Appreciate Risk of Consuming Raw Milk, Survey Finds

As for what those risks are, by the way, unpasteurized dairy products are estimated to cause 840x more illness and 45x more hospitalizations than pasteurized products.

This is because unpasteurized milk can (and often does) contain E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, and other such unpleasantries, which pasteurization kills.

Source for both of the above claims:

Characteristics of U.S. Consumers Reporting Past Year Intake of Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk: Results from the 2016 Food Safety Survey and 2019 Food Safety and Nutrition Survey

(we know the title sounds vague, but all this information is easily visible in the abstract, specifically, the first two paragraphs)

Raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy: True or False?

False! Whether it’s a “good” source can be debated depending on other factors (e.g., if we considered milk’s inflammatory qualities against its positive nutritional content), but it’s undeniably a rich source. However, pasteurization doesn’t destroy or damage those nutrients.

Incidentally, in the same survey we linked up top, 16% of the general US public believed that pasteurization destroys nutrients, while 41% were not sure (and 43% knew that it doesn’t).

Note: for our confidence here, we are skipping over studies published by, for example, dairy farming lobbies and so forth. Those do agree, by the way, but nevertheless we like sources to be as unbiased as possible. The FDA, which is not completely unbiased, has produced a good list of references for this, about half of which we would consider biased, and half unbiased; the clue is generally in the journal names. For example, Food Chemistry and the Journal of Food Science and Journal of Nutrition are probably less biased than the International Dairy Association and the Journal of Dairy Science:

FDA | Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption

this page covers a lot of other myths too, more than we have room to “bust” here, but it’s very interesting reading and we recommend to check it out!

Notably, we also weren’t able to find any refutation by counterexample on PubMed, with the very slight exception that some studies sometimes found that in the case of milks that were of low quality, pasteurization can reduce the vitamin E content while increasing the vitamin A content. For most milks however, no significant change was found, and in all cases we looked at, B-vitamins were comparable and vitamin D, popularly touted as a benefit of cow’s milk, is actually added later in any case. And, importantly, because this is a common argument, no change in lipid profiles appears to be findable either.

In science, when something has been well-studied and there aren’t clear refutations by counterexample, and the weight of evidence is clearly very much tipped into one camp, that usually means that camp has it right.

Milk generally is good/bad for the health: True or False?

True or False, depending on what we want to look at. It’s definitely not good for inflammation, but the whole it seems to be cancer-neutral and only increases heart disease risk very slightly:

• Keep Inflammation At Bay ← short version is milk is bad, fermented milk products are fine in moderation
• Is Dairy Scary? ← short version is that milk is neither good nor terrible; fermented dairy products however are health-positive in numerous ways when consumed in moderation

You may be wondering…

…how this goes for the safety of dairy products when it comes to the bird flu currently affecting dairy cows, and the good news is, the heat of pasteurization kills it:

With all this bird flu around, how safe are eggs, chicken or milk?

Take care!