from Hacker News

Engineering Sleep

by amin on 11/30/24, 4:33 AM with 193 comments

  • by stared on 11/30/24, 10:39 AM

    > Familial Natural Short Sleep (FNSS), a benign mutation that allows them to sleep 1-2 hours less than the recommended 7-9 hours, without experiencing the negative effects of sleep deprivation.

    Sleep deprivation is one concern, but there’s a more subtle impact on cognitive functions (working memory, creativity, deep focus), overall health (particularly the endocrine and immune systems), and long-term health outcomes (such as an increased risk of dementia).

    When I was younger, I was fascinated by various optimized sleep schedules. However, I noticed a stark contrast: many of my math friends consistently slept 9–10 hours a day. They needed that—not just to function in daily life but to achieve the deep focus required for their work. Living on less sleep might not affect immediate action (and in some cases, it might even seem to enhance focus on doing), but it can impair deeper, more complex thinking.

    Some suggest that one of sleep's key roles is to help the brain regenerate. Chronic sleep deprivation, in turn, is linked to a higher risk of dementia. For anecdotal evidence: Churchill and Thatcher, known for boasting about sleeping only 4–5 hours a night, experienced significant cognitive decline later in life.

  • by exmadscientist on 11/30/24, 8:46 AM

    Hey, discussion of orexin receptor stuff! As someone with clinically-diagnosed insomnia, I've been lucky enough to/unfortunate enough to have to try the orexin receptor antagonist sleep aids for a while. As recent, on-patent drugs, they are very, very expensive ($360/month was the number marked on the receipt slip, not that that means much in the US; I certainly wasn't paying that)... and they work. They really, really do work. I was prescribed them because I tried every single other class of sleep aid on the market and they were mostly ineffective, had massive side effects, or were benzos (temazepam: best sleep of my life, but better not use it for longer than a month!).

    This stuff? Orexin receptor antagonists? They work. Holy crap, do they ever work. Sleep quality better than the Z-drugs, great tolerability, no massive disruption going off them... when these things go off-patent they're going to be massive. Sleep quality was not perfect (maybe 80% of "normal"? I don't know) but that is absolutely minor compared to the alternative.

    (And for the record, I'm off them now due to other stuff clearing up such that I don't need this level of sleep assistance anymore. Not because I can't afford them.)

    I guess that's a long-winded way to say that if you're going to do questionably-advised sleep biohacking, orexin receptors are probably the place to start.

  • by londons_explore on 11/30/24, 2:05 PM

    It's notable that almost every animal sleeps in some way, even organisms that are away from sunlight (ie. creatures that live underground).

    If you sleep 30% of the time, that's 30% of the time you aren't eating, mating, etc. Also, during sleep you are more vulnerable to predators. One would expect evolution to get rid of sleep in creatures who don't rely on sunlight cycles.

    So, there must be some really good evolutionary reason for sleep.

  • by pedalpete on 11/30/24, 4:55 PM

    I work in the sleep space, particularly enhancing slow-wave sleep - the synchronous firing of neurons which define deep sleep, the most restorative and vital component of sleep.

    Only focusing on the amount of time asleep is a significantly limited viewpoint, but I believe this will change in the coming years as we gather more knowledge of sleep and access to EEG data about our brain activity during sleep increases.

    Only measuring sleep time is like measuring the health of a persons diet is by measuring how much time they spent eating, but of course, looking at macronutrients, calories, is the right way of doing it.

    I'll be writing more about this in the coming months, but my current thinking is that the concept of "can we sleep less" isn't the correct approach, and can be dangerous. At AffectableSleep.com - we increase the efficiency of deep sleep, and much of the research (https://affectablesleep.com/research) focuses on enhancing deep sleep in sleep deprived individuals (I'll post more research soon). This doesn't mean we should be sleeping less. A lack of quality sleep is already an epidemic in society, and massively underreported because the focus of the sleep industry has been the amount of time asleep, not the restorative functions of sleep.

    Our goal isn't to help you sleep less, and we will need to be very clear in our marketing, but rather to ensure the sleep you get is as restorative as possible.

    Of course, like any technology, some people will use it for negative purposes, which I believe would be to just "get by" on less sleep, rather than optimize your health through better sleep.

    You can find out more at https://affectablesleep.com

  • by nosefurhairdo on 11/30/24, 6:24 AM

    For the afficionados, there's an excellent paper titled "The neurobiological basis of narcolepsy" published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience which examines the relationship between orexin and sleep as it relates to narcolepsy patients: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6492289/

    In narcolepsy type 1 (NT1), patients have severely diminished orexin levels. This appears to cause them to inappropriately enter REM sleep.

    OP notes that the mutation lowering the sleep requirement causes an increase in orexin. I wonder whether the increased orexin could be inhibiting REM and perhaps facilitating a more restful architecture of sleep. Alternatively, perhaps elevated orexin levels during the day cause wakefulness such that you just don't need as much sleep, regardless of how efficient the sleep is.

    It would be interesting to compare sleep tracking data of people with and without this mutation to see if there are significant differences in time spent in different sleep stages.

  • by pella on 11/30/24, 7:31 AM

    A Gut Bacteria" is also a rather interesting approach to solving sleep problems. Does anyone have experience related to this?

    "The company ( FitBiomics ) has already commercialized two products. Their flagship offering, V•Nella, helps metabolize lactic acid and reduce fatigue, while Nella targets sleep health - a crucial market considering that 100 million Americans suffer from insomnia. "Within 10 to 14 days of daily consumption, consumers feel the difference," Scheiman notes. "They have less daily fatigue interfering with their daily life, more energy, and some people are tracking cardiovascular benefits on their wearables. We hear really cool anecdotal feedback like, 'Hey, I no longer have to take a nap in the middle of the day, or I no longer need coffee in the middle of the day.'"

    https://archive.md/XOmx5#selection-827.0-839.405

  • by worksonmymach on 11/30/24, 6:20 AM

    Why is it not a survival advantage? Probably because we didn't work 18 hour days, the extra wakeness would just be used for rest.

    Night shifts that anyone can do are still needed if you need tribal watchers, and normal 8hr sleeping people can wake upnand fight when needed.

    In terms of the gene, I am suprised how rare it is (90 families?) given I have met someone who needs only 4hr sleep.

    Another point is less sleep doesn't mean you can do 2 more hours work a day. That is another vector: how much work per day (physical, mental) can be done.

  • by righthand on 11/30/24, 2:04 PM

    > Getting a bad night of sleep now and then is annoying, but not a health risk. However, chronic poor sleep may increase the likelihood of developing dementia, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity and even cancers of the breast, colon, ovaries and prostate. [0]

    [0] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi...

    Is it entirely possible that yes you can get 2 hours less sleep, but you're at higher risk of developing dementia, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc.? I don't see anything discussing long term effects of less sleep in comparison in TFA.

  • by dooglius on 11/30/24, 1:43 PM

    There is a good reason why this would be selected against by evolution: being awake increases metabolic rate--how many calories you use every day. Humans have only had abundant food availability for a short time, not long enough for evolution to adapt.
  • by clumsysmurf on 11/30/24, 7:43 AM

    Recently this came up on sleep deprivation :

    "preemptive administration of low-dose aspirin during sleep restriction reduced pro-inflammatory responses. Specifically, aspirin reduced interleukin-6 expression and COX-1/COX-2 double positive cells in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated monocytes, as well as C-reactive protein serum levels."

    "aspirin-induced reduction of inflammatory pathway activity in sleep-restricted participants was paralleled by decreased wake after sleep onset and increased sleep efficiency during recovery sleep"

    But, bleeding and strokes :(

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-dose-aspirin-inflamma...

  • by almostlit on 11/30/24, 6:33 AM

    If there was in fact a safe pathway to only needing 2 hours of sleep I would 100% use it and consider it a zero to one innovation. Although I think it would also come with a lot of pushback. One of my favourite questions to ask people is "if there was a way that allowed you to not sleep and be completely fine, would you take it?". Surprisingly (or maybe not) most people will answer no and say they like sleep to much.

    I think most people aren't trying to squeeze the maximum amount of time efficiency from their day. They don't like sleep because they need it, they like sleep because its synonymous to relaxing. So less sleep means less relaxing.

  • by abhaynayar on 11/30/24, 7:51 AM

    Love the writing-style. Quite "to-the-point", without any fluff, and with a nice flow and purpose.
  • by baq on 11/30/24, 1:03 PM

    I’m not convinced we need to engineer sleep in the general population. Once shorter sleep times are available to everyone, they’ll be expected and then simply assumed just as cars are right now in most of the US.
  • by wslh on 11/30/24, 1:53 PM

    COVID affected my sleep, but I wouldn't classify it as “long COVID” Does anyone have interesting insights or resources about this? I’ve found a references, but HN is one of the best resources to ask for this.

    It seems to improve over time, and I don't have any trouble napping during the day. However, my main issue is fragmented sleep: I wake up a few times at night but can fall back asleep easily. I used to sleep continuously, so I’m curious about what part of the brain this could be affecting and how can this be changed. I tried melatonin [1] in different dosages, from extra low to relatively high.

    I’m fairly certain COVID was the cause since the symptoms coincided with the infection. Of course, statistically speaking, it could be a coincidence involving other factors, but I’m not planning to dive into a PhD analysis of it, yet!

    [1] https://gwern.net/melatonin

  • by ranprieur on 11/30/24, 4:09 PM

    > it’s not a desire but a necessity.

    Speak for yourself. I love sleep and wish I could sleep more. Sometimes I think the only purpose of being awake is to get food and shelter for more sleep.

  • by killjoywashere on 11/30/24, 7:44 AM

    > The UCSF group hypothesizes that this elevated level of orexin expression partially explains reduced sleep

    So, one possible line of investigation would be a table of mammals, their sleep cycles, their orexin levels, and the numbers of copies of orexin and it's regulators in their genomes. For example: compared to humans, elephants have a lower cancer risk. Turns out they have significantly more copies of p53, a tumor supressor gene (1).

    Perhaps a similar, somewhat parallel construct exists: elephants sleep 3-4 hours a night. Maybe they have more orexin? Maybe they have different copy numbers or mutations of the relevant genes in the pathway?

    (1) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5061548/

  • by alfiedotwtf on 11/30/24, 6:58 AM

    I wonder it I have this…

    Both my parents go to bed around 1am and wake up at 7am, and so did all of my grandparents. My kids on weekends go to bed around 1-2am as well but do sleep in, and my average is about 4-5 hours a night…

    As for me, I’ve had sleep issues all my life and found the only way to fall asleep within 20 minutes is to stay up until exhaustion. But lately I’ve been gaining back my time and pushing even further - once every one or two weeks I’ll skip a night of sleeping, staying up around 36 hours straight. I’ve been doing this for a few months now and have zero side effects so far. In fact I end up sleeping over 10 hours the next day without waking up in the middle (which /never/ happens otherwise).

  • by yapyap on 11/30/24, 12:47 PM

    This paper totally ignores the human aspect of sleeping, there is a habit to it.

    If we were able to be awake 20 hours a day we may still be miserable because of factors like the sun being down for ane even longer time while we’re awake.

    I feel like this is one of those inane pursuits for productivity where that doesn’t fit at all, at least not for the thinking jobs. Maybe in a dystopia big companies like amazon would use inventions like this to be able to let their employees work 20 hour work days or something.

    Of course this shouldn’t discredit the linked article of being interesting or anything, just sharing my thoughts on the endless pursuit of productivity.

  • by lokimedes on 11/30/24, 8:33 AM

    As above, so below. These lines of thinking sees sleep as a hygiene factor for maintaining bio stasis. We also process experiences and “simulate” effects of potential actions in the waking state. These “software-level” sleep activities seems less quantifiable in terms of sleep-time efficiency. If I get an evolutionary advantage from better consolidated experiences through longer dream sessions, how would that compare with more “face-time” with lions and famines in my waking state? There is a nasty “all things being equal” fallacy hidden in this line of thinking.
  • by thepuppet33r on 11/30/24, 4:52 PM

    I did a lot of sleep hacking in college, trying to sleep as little as possible so that I could spend time with friends, play video games, and (ostensibly) study.

    Now that I'm working a job where I do overnight deployments, often work 12-14 hours days, and have a couple of kids who don't sleep well, I hate my past self for not sleeping while he could. You never know when circumstances will drive you into unplanned sleep deprivation. Doing it to yourself for low-to-mid-level time gains isn't worth it.

  • by globular-toast on 11/30/24, 8:45 AM

    I've always wanted to reduce my sleep requirement. These days I naturally sleep for 8 hours. It's not completely wasted; my brain often figures out difficult problems while I sleep. But if I could do something relaxing like playing a game or socialising instead that would be great.

    I did try polyphasic sleep when I was younger but it didn't work out. Having my sleeping patterns so far off the standard made me really unhappy.

  • by lccerina on 12/2/24, 4:13 PM

    It bums so much that the "solution" to people suffering sleep deprivation is always trying to find something to sell them and not remove the causal problems: noise and light pollution, limited opportunities for proper nutrition and physical activity, insane work hours requirements and excessive commute time, etc...
  • by awinter-py on 11/30/24, 6:09 AM

    I read nancy kress / beggars in spain as a teenager and get such an eerie vibe from short sleeper research

    but also let's go, if a giraffe can sleep 2 hours so can I

  • by iancmceachern on 11/30/24, 7:41 PM

    The best advice I ever received, and will give again. It has really served me well.

    In the words of John Lennon, let it be.

    Sleep when you're tired, work and play when you're not. The constrination and worrying about it, how much time you have for what, etc. is the single biggest driver for the stress and loss of sleep. Let go of that, let if flow, it will.

  • by benreesman on 11/30/24, 10:08 AM

    I’ll admit I didn’t read TFA.

    Some combination of the title and the submission domain triggered my tick even more than usual around the use of “AI”.

    It’s extremely unlikely that I’ll regard any artifact as artificially intelligent if the broader context fails a pretty low bar for intelligence of any kind.

  • by sinuhe69 on 11/30/24, 8:40 AM

    My question is, if sleeping less (with FNSS) offers so much advantage, why haven't we all evolved to sleep less with FNSS? If a mutation offers a distinct advantage, natural selection will force us to adopt it sooner or later.
  • by kator on 11/30/24, 10:55 AM

    This article makes me want to get a DNA test. In my family, it’s very common to sleep in the six-hour range. I personally sleep from 10 pm to 4:25 am every day, often waking up around 4:15 am before my watch vibrates to wake me.

    If I sleep eight hours, I feel groggy, jet-lagged, and generally have a day where I’m slogging through molasses to get from one task to the next.

    My wife has raised concerns about my sleep pattern, so I started using sleep-tracking tools like Fitbit and, more recently, an Apple Watch. She tracks her sleep too, and the big difference we’ve noticed is that I fall asleep within about two minutes, and my “sleep efficiency” using these tools is 98%. If I’m traveling and feel a bit jet-lagged, I can take a 20-minute nap (often without an alarm) and wake up feeling refreshed. She also seems to wake up a lot, most nights I "sleep like a log" and I only wakeup in the morning.

    My mother has the same pattern but stays up later and sleeps about six hours into the morning. I used to do this too, but around age 23, I switched to an earlier bedtime and a consistent daily routine. When I became a “morning person,” I found I could code like crazy in the morning before “starting” my day, and this rewarding experience reinforced the habit.

    I’ve tested this pattern in many ways, including not using an alarm (I still wake up around the same time for weeks at a time) and using a “light clock” I built with a Raspberry Pi to slowly brighten the room. Again, I wake up after roughly 6 hours and 20 minutes. Now, I use my Apple Watch to vibrate as a gentle reminder to start the day. On weekends, I keep the same schedule and use the extra time to read or hack away at side projects, often coding until the late afternoon when my wife protests enough that I need to stop and hang out or do my honey-do's.

    About 10 years ago, during my annual checkup, my wife asked my doctor about this sleep pattern. The doctor asked me several questions, seemingly looking for signs of sleep deficit or dysfunction. In the end, he said I could do a sleep study but concluded, “If it works, don’t break it.”

    As for productivity, I’ve found I can code effectively from 4:30 am to 8:30 am, then shower and work from 9 am to 6 pm without much trouble. I also practice intermittent fasting, typically eating only at 6 pm, with a protein shake around noon. This habit happened by accident—I realized breakfast slowed me down, and eating lots of carbs impaired my cognitive function and ability to code or handle complex tasks in the morning.

    Before you ask, I generally don’t use caffeine or other stimulants. Occasionally, I’ll have one cup of coffee around 9 am as a social habit, but I recently stopped that again and actually feel better. I’ll most likely drop it again for a while until it sneaks back in again.

  • by joshdavham on 11/30/24, 8:58 PM

    > What if they could keep sleeping less, but with no consequences?

    This is a super interesting question!

    I think one ironic possibility is that people would still sleep deprive themselves, but with even fewer hours of sleep.

  • by colordrops on 11/30/24, 6:57 AM

    My first reaction is to wonder what the downside of such a gene is. Perhaps there is no downside for the individuals that have it, but these individuals serve a particular purpose to the greater civilization and lack other capabilities that benefit humanity as a whole. If there is a trade-off perhaps it is not at the individual level.

    Maybe it's similar to the idea that we can just eradicate mosquitos with no negative effects. Is that really true?

  • by renewiltord on 11/30/24, 9:22 AM

    Is it really possible? Taking 16 waking hours to 20 waking hours would make my 40 remaining years into 50 remaining year equivalent. I will attend to this.
  • by kthejoker2 on 11/30/24, 4:08 PM

    The Taylorism (and eugenics) people would have a field day with this.

    Are there any good sci fi stories or novels on reducing or eliminating sleep through better chemistry?

    Given the impetus of the article is we're all chronically sleep deprived, I wonder what kind of (Swiftian?) political solution there might be to collectively improving sleep health.

    Certainly the current commercial solution is drugs and lots of them.

  • by m0llusk on 11/30/24, 11:44 AM

    Kind of tangential, but some time ago now passed famous sleep researcher William Dement gave a presentation at Google TechTalks about healthy sleep and optimal performance that is a good overall review of what we know about sleep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hAw1z8GdE8
  • by ouraf on 12/1/24, 4:49 AM

    Maybe I skipped something, but the article went on about sleep efficiency without touching on sleep quality.

    Things like apnea and even a bad pillow/mattress combination can make someone's sleeping hours pretty miserable, and that's much easier to control and spread awareness than promoting gene therapy

  • by cmiller1 on 11/30/24, 12:38 PM

    They talk about the people achieving full mental capacity with less sleep, but are there any studies on physical recovery in people with FNSS? Do they also experience improved rate of exercise recovery and muscle growth during sleep?
  • by muzster on 11/30/24, 12:55 PM

    not all hours sleep/awake hours are equal - for example, I may be more work productive late at night, a better listener/learner in the mornings and better sleeper post meals, in the bath tub, travelling (my kids used to love falling asleep in the car).

    Wonder if we could engineer multiple sleep intervals through out the single day (e.g. power napping, siesta's). There is plenty of dead time for me during the day that could be swapped out for sleep.. the question is at what cost to the body & mind?

    Just a thought.

  • by RobCodeSlayer on 12/3/24, 5:51 AM

    One of my friends is participating in a research studying using Orexin Agonists to treat narcolepsy - the research is happening!
  • by gardenhedge on 11/30/24, 6:52 AM

    I wonder if this would give full energy/mental capacity with 4 hours sleep after drinking alcohol
  • by ein0p on 11/30/24, 6:55 PM

    Yeah, optimize yourself to make every available dollar for your corporate / government masters. Or just sleep 8+ hours a night like you're supposed to according to decades of published research. Which way western man/woman?
  • by naming_the_user on 11/30/24, 7:42 AM

    I'm not really convinced that removing the need for sleep would result in me being more productive primarily because I'm not an always-on computer.

    The average day for me has huge differences in terms of my productivity at any given moment. I need downtime anyway, if I didn't sleep I believe that I'd end up vegging out in some way because I'm not doing 24 hours of flashcards.

    The discussions on here also always seem to centre around a very stereotypical "I am a vat for my brain" way of thinking. Realistically whilst sleeping other things are going on, muscles are recovering, digestive processes are going on, other forms of growing, etc, it's not just the brain.

    There are also things like circadian rhythm, sunshine, etc. I woke up early today and had a few hours of darkness, I can feel my mood and brainpower improving as the sun rises.

    We are not bots, this stuff is analogue.

  • by necovek on 11/30/24, 6:01 AM

    How about — instead of making sleep more "efficient" — we engineer our lives to provide decent amount of sleep and not stress over having more and more of the waking hours to do stuff.

    After all, we live in the age of abundance.

    (Though I admit I might not be the best person to ask for this as I am on the lower end of how much sleep I need)

  • by k__ on 11/30/24, 12:03 PM

    Cool!

    Next solve going to the toilet and we're all set.