On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Linda M. Woolf wrote:
>
> Napping is not a norm and should be avoided.
Sez who? As a habitual napper, I take exception to this claim.
Something like the 40% of the world who take siestas would agree (ok,
I made that figure up, but it must be something like that). There's
nothing like a nap for kick-starting those sleepy brain cells back
into productive action.
And I seem to recall (means I'm at home and don't know where the
information is anyway), that the BRAC (basic rest-activity cycle)
first identified by the godfather of sleep research, Nathanial
Kleitman, has two components, a major one at night, and a minor one at
siesta time. So there seems to be a biological justification for
napping. Moreover, I believe there's a pile of current research
demonstrating the effectiveness of napping on performance, so much so
that it's actually a recommended practice at some companies and even
for pilots on long flights.
A quick search turned up the following representative of recent
research on the topic
Sleep Research Online 1(4): 166-178, 1998
http://www.sro.org/1998/Broughton/166/
SCN Controlled Circadian Arousal and the Afternoon "Nap Zone"
Roger J. Broughton [ a noted authority on sleep disorders]
Back to Linda...
> For a brief overview, go to
> http://www.healthanswers.com/adam/top/view.asp?filename=004018.htm&rdir
where it says:
"The sleep cycle includes dreamless periods of light and deep sleep,
with occasional periods of active dreaming (REM sleep)."
They got that wrong, too.
-Stephen (now wide awake after his afternoon nap)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
