Men! Grasp your manly cods and run for the spare bedroom! Because today it has been exclusively revealed that sleeping with the ladies leaves you stressed and unfit for even simple mental tasks -- while women (the crazy minxes), though they claim that they have more broken sleep with a man in their bed, suffer no ill effects from it whatsoever -- after all (says a leading sleep scientist), what with bringing up children, the menopause and the menstrual cycle, they've obviously adapted to need practically no sleep at all, so (if you're prepared to suffer the dreadful impaiment to your mental activities) go ahead, snore and kick away!
So tell me, Professor Gerhard Kloesch, how large a sample did you base these conclusions on? Eight unmarried couples in their twenties.
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Eight unmarried couples in their twenties.
No, so that everyone can hear. Eight unmarried couples in their twenties.
Ah.
The 20-day study (ten nights sleeping together, ten alone) also looked at whether sharing a bed made a difference to whether people remembered their dreams. "Typically* women remembered more of their dreams after sleeping alone while men recalled the most after sex."
*This may be a mis-use of the word typically.
So tell me, Professor Gerhard Kloesch, how large a sample did you base these conclusions on? Eight unmarried couples in their twenties.
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Eight unmarried couples in their twenties.
No, so that everyone can hear. Eight unmarried couples in their twenties.
Ah.
The 20-day study (ten nights sleeping together, ten alone) also looked at whether sharing a bed made a difference to whether people remembered their dreams. "Typically* women remembered more of their dreams after sleeping alone while men recalled the most after sex."
*This may be a mis-use of the word typically.
- Current Mood:mad science not bad science
- Current Music:muse - take a bow
Profile
cleanskies- Jeremy Dennis is Jeremy Day
- Jeremy Dennis's alleged literature
From and For
Page Summary
- surliminal : (no subject) [+0]
- jinxremoving : (no subject) [+0]
- buddleia : Worthy of the Metro [+0]
- badasstronaut : (no subject) [+11]
- elfbiter : (no subject) [+0]
- applez : (no subject) [+0]
- jackfirecat : (no subject) [+1]
- tea_and_cuddles : (no subject) [+0]
- jane_the_23rd : (no subject) [+1]
- damiancugley : Is it the men or is it the women? [+1]
- (Anonymous) : Are you as stupid as you sound? [+2]
- elfbiter : Happy Birthday [+0]
Comments
ha!
Very brief -- it's a sidebar story.
Introduction: So far only a few studies (e. g. Meadows et al 2005) have focused on the interrelationship between bedpartners and its effect on sleep and sleep quality. Previous studies were either restricted to women's perceptions and experiences of sleep (Hislop et al 2003) or to interaction between parents and children.
Method: The current investigation examined how sleep and sleep quality is influenced by the presence and absence of the bedpartner over a period of four weeks. Couples were young unmarried students (mean age: 25; range: 22 - 26) with no children and no history of sleep disturbances. All subjects filled in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a standardized sleep anamnesis inventory as well as the MEQ- questionnaire to evaluate morning- or evening- chronotypes. Sleep-wake patterns were continuously monitored by wrist-worn actigraphs and all subjects completed a sleep diary including a standardized self-rating scale for subjective sleep and awakening quality every morning. During the investigation period subjects were instructed to spend at least 10 nights together and 10 separately.
Results: Preliminary results from three couples (out of 10) show a significant reduction of subjective sleep and awakening quality in the co-sleeping condition as compared to the nights slept alone. This tendency was observed in females as well as in males. Co-sleeping also reduced objective (calculated by actigraphs) and subjective sleep efficiency (sleep log data) with a more pronounced reduction in females. When sleeping alone women have more sleep epochs associated with movements than men. In nights spent together in both females and males the mean activity score increased but the changes were not significant.
Discussion: The current investigation examines both gender differences during sleep/wakefulness and the physiological and psychological impact each partner has on the other during sleep.
I don't have any problems with the validity of the project itself (as far as I can determine based only on the abstract and the various reports) but I do think the language could have been more conservative in attribution of the results. I'd interpret that it's just the participants being referred to at this point, but I suppose it could be ambiguous.
I grumble at both studies producing controversial results from limited data:
1. Contrary to popular belief, the full moon does not disturb sleep.
2. Contrary to popular belief, co-sleeping is bad for men and not for women.
Pfff, well. Funding for a larger study may follow, given the press excitement it's generated. All the "well I'd better kick the wife out of the bed then" comments on the Daily Mail article suggests it's research very much in the public interest ...
* It doesn't.
I wonder if this will end up in
Not shy of loading a rather odd evolutionary argument (pluckd from prejudice rather than evidence) onto it, is he?
Is car-driving also contra-indicated, since 'historially' we didn't do that either? Not that I do, but by the same reasoning, blogging itself is unnatural and bizarre. No wonder we're all a bit confused.
AMAZING.
I also wonder, see, that since, well, from the people I know who've participated in sleep studies, and considering the age profile of this lot, how many of the participants did it to fund more bong hits?
This ludicrous piece of research shall fit in with my current mode of 'not getting any', until it no longer serves its purpose.
For your information, women suck the energy out of men while they sleep. Your succubi comment, which you think is funny, is exactly factually correct.
If you were smart, you would take that knowledge and employ it in your life to protect yourself. Reading your blog post, I am certain that you will look for other people who know much more than you do so you can ridicule and jeer them.
You really ought to be smarter before you go shooting your mouth off.
Disappointing. Last time I got researchers and everything.
.... and if you'd looked through the comments rather than just shouting your mouth off, you'd have seen that we discussed research methodology, the stage the research was at, whether or not the top-line results published were optimistic, and reproduced the abstract of the paper in full.
And, like most people, I do spend time in convenience stores -- although I don't need to wear mad goggles to do so.
"Your succubi comment, which you think is funny, is exactly factually correct......If you were smart, you would take that knowledge and employ it in your life to protect yourself"
it reads like he's, er, confused about your gender. Also batshit insane in a worrying god-tells-me-to-kill-women kind of way.