First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by Udo on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @04:25AM (#6474892)

All the data I have is anecdotal but here it is: I'm an owl. I do not experience worse sleep compared to normal people, and in my experience my sleep pattern seems to work better than most larks. The things the article attributes to owls are not problems I'm suffering from, but on the contrary some of my lark or normal friends do have them, including unusual tiredness during the day. I usually don't consume tobacco or alcohol (only on certain social occasions).

I'm also fortunate in that I have some brain MRIs of mine and in my opinion there is no marked reduction in white matter anywhere. I do not have the feeling that I'm suffering from permanent jet lag, though I must admit that I seldomly experience jet lag at all (which I guess could mean I have it all the time without noticing it somehow).

And here comes the most poignant bit of the article:

  "It's interesting that there are individual differences, but we need 
  to understand what is causing them and find ways of creating environments 
  in which those differences can be attenuated," says Dirk-Jan Djik

which sounds horrible and ignorant. I don't want my differences to be attenuated. People are different, and for the most part that's a good thing. Being an owl is only a problem if it inhibits human function. Otherwise, I refuse to be labelled sick simply because I have a different innate sleep pattern. Being an owl works for me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by kbajorin on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @08:36AM (#6475667)

You've missed the point. This is not about those that live healthy lives as nightowls, but those that do not. Can we attenuate the differences among the owls to figure out why some are unhealthy and others are not. Furthermore, can we figure out the attributes that larks have, that on the whole seem to make them healthier than owls. Then, maybe we can adjust the lifestyles of the unhealthy larks to have them lead a healthier life.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by Udo on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @09:02AM (#6475787)

> This is not about those that live healthy lives as nightowls, but those that do not. Can we attenuate the differences among the owls to figure out why some are unhealthy and others are not.

That's not what the article is suggesting, and attenuating differences to figure out the differences makes absolutely no sense, not even semantically. The attenuation of differences in this context means that the intent is to standardize the populace, nothing more, nothing less.

> Furthermore, can we figure out the attributes that larks have, that on the whole seem to make them healthier than owls.

And I'm pretty sure I said I don't believe certain points the article claims at face value. I don't think you can call this incredulity "missing the point". This assertion that larks are healthier than owls, which seems to be at the bottom of all this, should at least have more empirical data behind it (preferably gathered by people with less bias).

> Then, maybe we can adjust the lifestyles of the unhealthy larks to have them lead a healthier life.

Now you're just contradicting your own comment. Did you maybe mean to say "owls" there?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by kbajorin on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @10:46AM (#6476513)

1. Attenuating non relevant differences absolutely makes sense. Attenuating is used in the context of controls to eliminate confounding variables.

2. I'm unsure how this scientific research shows bias. Small sample size, perhaps, but not much in the way of bias. You on the other hand are taking a scientific study as a personal assault on your lifestyle. The article doesn't even claim that the changes in white matter have adverse health effects.

here is an excerpt: It's also not clear whether the structural changes have any implications for people's health.

3. Yes, I did mean to type owls there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by bronbron on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @09:52AM (#6476095)

> The attenuation of differences in this context means that the intent is to standardize the populace, nothing more, nothing less.

> "Rosenberg suggests that people's work schedules should change to fit in with their natural sleep patterns"

I realize there's some of what you're talking about going on here (e.g. the very next phrase mentioning that there's an 'easier way'), but I think there's far less intent than you're implying.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by dionidium on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @11:54AM (#6476955)

Right, I mean, we can talk about large, ominous themes or we can talk about daily practicality. My boss wants me to come in around 9AM, more or less, but my body and mind want me to be awake from midnight to 4AM. That's sort of a problem. If a doctor can help, then I want that help.

The attenuation of differences in this context means that the intent is to standardize the populace, nothing more, nothing less.

It sounds to me like you came to this article with the feeling that owls are mistreated relative to larks and you're layering that previous sentiment over the article so that it says things to you that it doesn't literally say.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by lfuller on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @12:38PM (#6477251)

In the quote you've chosen the researcher specifically says "on the whole".

Are you arguing that your physiology represents the whole of humanity? This may have enormous implications for cancer research and neuroscience if so - you should get in touch with your local research university.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by yetanotherphd on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @09:56AM (#6476128)

I don't see where in that statement it is implied that the differences should be attenuated for their own sake, and not because of some negative consequences that that researcher believes altered sleep schedules have. The article itself states that the causal relationship between being a night owl and certain negative outcomes is hard to clearly establish, but the tone of the article suggests that many experts suspect such a relationship.

You may disagree with his beliefs, but to claim that an expert in the field is ignorant, just because his statements don't accord with your own experience, is ridiculous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by dllthomas on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @12:06PM (#6477031)

When owls and larks need to work together for prolonged periods, it seems like the ability to "creat[e] environments in which those differences can be attenuated" would be handy. That doesn't imply that we need to be attenuating them in all circumstances.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First physical evidence of why you're an owl or a lark by lfuller on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @12:34PM (#6477225)

While it's great that you experience no negatives from being a night owl, a personal anecdote like this cannot be considered alongside medical research.

With any research, findings apply to the majority of the population studied - if, for example, 1 in 10,000 people experience something different than the majority, that 1 person's anecdote does not mean that the research was incorrect.

In this case, it it appears from the results that the potential benefits of specialized treatment for those affected by sleep phase disorders outweighs the potential to offend or affront those people whose physiologies do not match the results of this study.

[ Parent | on HN ]