I have no opinion either way, since the field seems to be dominated by empirical "evidence" and cranks, but this guy's entire argument rests on this sentence:
"One of the myths of "Uberman sleep schedule" is that it makes it possible to enter REM sleep and skip non-REM sleep stages entirely. That myth is derived from another false claim that implies a non-essential role of deep sleep. I will ignore these claims as standing in total disagreement with laboratory findings and models of sleep. Instead, let us focus on a more plausible claim of the possibility of compressing sleep stages.".
I.e. "I will ignore one of my opponent's arguments and instead focus on another. Since I can rebuff the other argument, my original viewpoint is true". It's a logical fallacy.
He also tends to say "X is unnatural/abnormal" => "X is unhealthy".
I wish someone did serious research into the topic without prejudice.
Let me tell you, as a narcoleptic, I get hours and hours of REM sleep and virtually no deep sleep. It is not pleasant. I started using a drug that facilitated more deep sleep. All of this was monitored and my brain waves were recorded. This is anecdotal but the idea that deep sleep is not absolutely essential is ridiculous to me.
I think that rather than a simple "I will ignore X", his point was more "I will ignore X because experimental evidence indicates X is not true". This seems completely legitimate to me.
Comments
I have no opinion either way, since the field seems to be dominated by empirical "evidence" and cranks, but this guy's entire argument rests on this sentence:
"One of the myths of "Uberman sleep schedule" is that it makes it possible to enter REM sleep and skip non-REM sleep stages entirely. That myth is derived from another false claim that implies a non-essential role of deep sleep. I will ignore these claims as standing in total disagreement with laboratory findings and models of sleep. Instead, let us focus on a more plausible claim of the possibility of compressing sleep stages.".
I.e. "I will ignore one of my opponent's arguments and instead focus on another. Since I can rebuff the other argument, my original viewpoint is true". It's a logical fallacy.
He also tends to say "X is unnatural/abnormal" => "X is unhealthy".
I wish someone did serious research into the topic without prejudice.
Let me tell you, as a narcoleptic, I get hours and hours of REM sleep and virtually no deep sleep. It is not pleasant. I started using a drug that facilitated more deep sleep. All of this was monitored and my brain waves were recorded. This is anecdotal but the idea that deep sleep is not absolutely essential is ridiculous to me.
I think that rather than a simple "I will ignore X", his point was more "I will ignore X because experimental evidence indicates X is not true". This seems completely legitimate to me.
http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih3/sleep/guid...