Devoted nap-takers explain the benefits of sleeping on the job

Why glorify a habit of oversized toddlers who never outgrew nap time in kindergarten?

People need to realize that if you sleep like a healthy, functional adult - a full 7.5-9 hours a night - instead of doom-scrolling until 3 AM - you wouldn't need to pass out at your desk like an overtired infant.

No, an afternoon siesta is not some kind of revolutionary life hack, it's a CLEAR you need to get your health and your life together.

Why glorify a habit of oversized toddlers who never outgrew nap time in kindergarten?

Mostly because it is healthy and bring benefits, and that your personal opinion about it has absolutely no relevance on what others believe about it.

Lots of things you may be doing could be described negatively by many people, would that make you stop? If not, that is your answer.

The article describes the many benefits that people can get from a short nap, nothing you believe about it would make those benefit less real, so it is completely understandable that people would choose to do what is best for them even if other people have irrational beliefs about it.

And no, the naps are not recommended instead of a good night sleep, but as a stand alone measure. The article makes that very clear, recommending healthy sleeping habits at night AND a short nap during the day.

Why glorify a habit of oversized toddlers who never outgrew nap time in kindergarten?

Good point.

Mostly because it is healthy and bring benefits, and that your personal opinion about it has absolutely no relevance on what others believe about it.

No, according to medical professionals.

So if you had an M.D. for example you would know of the below risks, but you do not so it is just your personal opinion:

(i) Excessive Daytime Napping Increases the Risk of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

(ii) Increase in hypertension, and stroke.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11283788/

https://www.sciencealert.com/frequent-napping-could-come-with-a-concerning-health-risk

I can have one or two-hour naps daily in addition to my 8-hour sleep.

Higher risk of developing Alzheimer's too.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/03/vicious-cycle-found-between-excessive-napping-and-alzheimers/

Good point.

No so good seeing how it was easily refuted.

No, according to medical professionals.

Yes according to medical professionals whose opinions are included in the article.

You on the other hand bring no professional opinions contradicting the article, instead you bring irrelevant ones that talk about something very different.

Excessive Daytime Napping Increases the Risk of

The article do NOT talk about excessive napping, therefore your reference do not apply at all, this article even makes the point of saying there is a healthy degree of sleep that can be done in this way and that doing it for too long periods is not recommended, therefore contradicting the false claim you made.

So if you had an M.D.

How do you know what degrees other commenters have here? are you trying to claim you know what other people commending here do or who they are? can you even provide any evidence of this claim you make?

Or is it just again making baseless claims about what other people do for a living as you tend to do when you find out you have no argument?

Most of us could not get off to sleep anything like quickly enough for naps to be an option. And that may be a good thing. If you can fall asleep that quickly, you may need to take a lot more care driving and when travelling on public transport.

If you're falling asleep at your desk, you're not working hard enough, or not sleeping properly at night. Don't blame circadian rhythms when really it was those pints and tiktoks the night before.

If you're falling asleep at your desk, you're not working hard enough, or not sleeping properly at night. 

But even if people are not falling asleep at their desks they can get many benefits from a nap. You are confusing between two very different situations as if they were the same when they are not.

Mostly because it is healthy and bring benefits, and that your personal opinion about it has absolutely no relevance on what others believe about it.

Lots of things you may be doing could be described negatively by many people, would that make you stop? If not, that is your answer.

Completely false according to every single sleep expert/institution in the entire world. You can try to frame naps as some undeniable life hack if you like, but in reality, functioning adults who get proper sleep at night don't need to pass out like overgrown toddlers halfway through the day. If naps are so revolutionary, why is the most successful demographic in the world those who actually stay awake, get things done and properly recuperate at night?

But even if people are not falling asleep at their desks they can get many benefits from a nap. You are confusing between two very different situations as if they were the same when they are not.

When you are energised and alert because you slept well the previous night, the last thing on your mind is a nap. What a waste of your - and your boss's - time. That circadian dip is more than offset by regular and adequate sleep. You should also be aware of the healthy benefits of a good diet, and exercise. Nappers are likely lacking in one of those areas.

And if you do have an energy lull in the day - life happens and we can't always get an appropriate amount of sleep - get up. Elevate your heart rate and enjoy some adrenaline and endorphins. That'll get you going. Sorry, but save your naps for your own time.

Completely false according to every single sleep expert/institution in the entire world.

Can you bring even one reference for this? or is it that you are just making up a claim without any support expecting people just to believe this false appeal to authority.

For example it is trivially easy to refute this false claim with a recommendation from a well known institution

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-i-take-afternoon-naps

So, enjoy your nap. Even if you return to work, maintaining an afternoon nap as part of your daily routine can be beneficial.

You can try to frame naps as some undeniable life hack if you like, but in reality, functioning adults who get proper sleep at night don't need to pass out like overgrown toddlers halfway through the day

No life hack, simply a well described custom that improves many things and that people benefit a lot from even if they don't "need" it as the article clearly describes. Once again, the experts in the article clearly know much more than nameless people on the internet about the topic, so their recommendations are much more trustworthy and reliable.

If naps are so revolutionary, why is the most successful demographic in the world those who actually stay awake, get things done and properly recuperate at night?

Again, exactly nothing in the article says that people should replace sleep at night with naps, that is only your own misunderstanding that could have been prevented by reading the article, and unless you can present data that proves productivity do not improve with the short sleep recommended here you have no argument, for all you know the "most successful demographic" do so because of short naps.

When you are energised and alert because you slept well the previous night, the last thing on your mind is a nap

Yet people can benefit from having one as the article describes. You are still confused between needing a nap and benefiting from it. People may not feel they need periods of excercise between time spend sitting, but that does nothing to refute the fact that doing that excercise is better for their health and productivity.

What a waste of your - and your boss's - time.

Increasing importantly productivity in the afternoon is a waste? for this argument to hold any weight you would need to demonstrate that the increase in productivity do not outweight the 20 minutes "lost" sleeping. The same argument could be said by the time "lost" eating lunch, when people could simply push and work with an empty stomach.

And if you do have an energy lull in the day - life happens and we can't always get an appropriate amount of sleep - get up. 

Which expert supports this claim over a short nap? obviously you are not trying to say this based on your own authority, right?

A well-known institution warns:

 The limit is 60 minutes, because longer naps have been linked to a higher risk of health problems like cardiovascular disease.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-i-take-afternoon-naps

Yet people can benefit from having one as the article describes.

They can get those same benefits from taking a quick walk around the block, skulling back a cold glass of water or doing 10 push-ups in a corner. Much quicker.

Increasing importantly productivity in the afternoon is a waste? for this argument to hold any weight you would need to demonstrate that the increase in productivity do not outweight the 20 minutes "lost" sleeping. The same argument could be said by the time "lost" eating lunch, when people could simply push and work with an empty stomach.

I love it when I need an email or a report etc from a colleague in a timely fashion, only to be told that I have to wait for thirty minutes because they are taking a nap. It's really good for my and the rest of the office's productivity.

Which expert supports this claim over a short nap? obviously you are not trying to say this based on your own authority, right?

Any of them do, particularly, when the choice is between that or sleeping on the job.

https://www.healthline.com/health/daytime-sleepiness/tips-for-work#1-A-shot-of-caffeine

There are a few here. It does list taking a nap, but with the important caveat: "...on your lunch break."

A well-known institution warns:

Congratulations, you just demonstrated why your previous criticism of "excessive sleeping" is not appropriate for the topic in the article that never recommends 60 minutes or more, instead it explicitly says much shorter naps are recommended.

This is the same as every other medical recommendation, excercise is good, but excessive excercise can be harmful, caloric restriction can be healthy, but excessive caloric restriction can cause health problems.

And you never answered the question:

How do you know what accreditations other people commenting here have? Or are you accepting this is just a baseless claim you made when you could find no argument to support your claims?

They can get those same benefits from taking a quick walk around the block, skulling back a cold glass of water or doing 10 push-ups in a corner. Much quicker.

Citation needed. Again, appeals to authority are not something that have any value from nameless people on the internet.

I love it when I need an email or a report etc from a colleague in a timely fashion, only to be told that I have to wait for thirty minutes because they are taking a nap.

Or they are taking their lunch, according to you it is then also recommended for people to don't eat anything until they are back to their house, right? Else this would also invalidate the argument.

It's really good for my and the rest of the office's productivity.

So again, how about concrete numbers of gained and lost productivity, either evidence or a reference where an experts supports this claim.

Any of them do, particularly, when the choice is between that or sleeping on the job.

The reference from Harvard is still there, and they do not recommend replacing a short nap with excercise, this alone would disprove your claim.

I mean, your own source says it is recommended to take a power nap, and it does not mention it is better to replace it with anything.

Specially important this is about how to deal with feeling sleepy at work, that a nap increases productivity in no way depends on this.

There are a few here. It does list taking a nap, but with the important caveat: "...on your lunch break."

But according to you this is not justified, people would not send an email or report in a timely fashion if they are losing time taking a break for lunch.

I mean, your own source says it is recommended to take a power nap, and it does not mention it is better to replace it with anything.

No, napping is shown in the sources by the medical experts, such as MDs and PhDs, to have many health risks, so you are just providing a non-medical opinion.

Citation needed.

Provided.

Or they are taking their lunch, according to you it is then also recommended for people to don't eat anything until they are back to their house, right? Else this would also invalidate the argument.

Well I probably wouldn't ask during the accepted lunch time. Nap time? This is a professional work environment, not a nursery school. Furthermore, you can much more easily reply to an email, answer your phone or go to someone's office if you are in the middle of eating a sandwich than when you are fast asleep.

So again, how about concrete numbers of gained and lost productivity, either evidence or a reference where an experts supports this claim.

Same for naps, please.

The reference from Harvard is still there, and they do not recommend replacing a short nap with excercise, this alone would disprove your claim.

Nor do they dismiss it. And anyway, the article about post-retirement napping. Nice try but that's not what we are talking about here.

I mean, your own source says it is recommended to take a power nap, and it does not mention it is better to replace it with anything.

It does. In your own time, not anybody else's. It also provides a list of alternatives. Further sources linked at the bottom if you missed them.

"Remember to give yourself 10 minutes after napping before engaging in mentally or physically demanding tasks."

So a thirty minute nap, and then a short break to recover from your nap. Sorry, but your source is hilarious.

But then we have conflicting expert advice. Seems like 1 hour nap is not excessive according to the experts.

*That said, though, other experts recommend sticking with either 20 minutes or 90 minutes.*

https://www.sleep.com/sleep-health/naps-performance

No, napping is shown in the sources by the medical experts, such as MDs and PhDs, to have many health risks, so you are just providing a non-medical opinion.

No, that is a misrepresentation only you are making, the actual dangers come from excessive sleeping, something this article is not recommending.

Provided

Nothing in the reference says the same benefit can be obtained, it gives options without quantifying the benefit. Are you accepting you have no reference to prove the claim you made?

Well I probably wouldn't ask during the accepted lunch time.

Which makes it obvious you accept a reduced productivity but only if you want to use that time for personal reasons, this means your argument is purely subjective and not something that can be imposed to others. If someone said the opposite (feel fine not infringing on nap time but considering lunch time a waste) it would have the same argument you had.

Same for naps, please.

This article contain the professional opinion of experts that explicitly says this is an advantage for productivity, you refused to bring any reference where your claim could be supported, if you accept you don't have data either that means this article is much more reliable and trustworthy than your personal and subjective beliefs about it.

Nor do they dismiss it.

For your claim you needed the experts to base their recommendations exclusively on replacing night sleep, as long as they are not doing it then your claim is baseless, not dismissing it has no relevance on the lack of basis of what you claimed.

It does.

And since it does not recommend anything over it, your original claim remains without any support.

In your own time, not anybody else's.

Same as a lunch break, but since you personally justify giving time to that activity and not this one you think this is an argument, it is not, it is just you expressing what you personally prefer, not what is acceptable or not.

So a thirty minute nap, and then a short break to recover from your nap. Sorry, but your source is hilarious.

15 to 20 as recommended is enough, and still much less than the full hour for lunch that is normal, that is much more hilarious.

But then we have conflicting expert advice. 

There is no conflict on 15-20 minutes not being excessive, therefore your claim that the naps recommended in this article bring risks to the health is still baseless and contradicted by the experts.

I see a lot of sleeping on the train-benefits?