Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
Before a big exam we’ve all been tempted to cram at the expense of a good night's sleep. But sleep is just as critical for school success as reviewing those notes. In fact, compromising on sleep can negate any advantage from extra studying.
In a new study, scientists had more than 500 high school students document how long they studied and slept over two weeks. They also had them note any negatives during that period—things like not understanding a lecture.
The researchers found that the students who studied a lot at the expense of sleep had significantly more issues than those who kept a more balanced study schedule. The academic issues typically came the day after sacrificing sleep. The study is the journal Child Development. [Cari Gillen-O’Neel, Virginia W. Huynh and Andrew J. Fuligni, To Study or to Sleep? The Academic Costs of Extra Studying at the Expense of Sleep]
Overall, those students who studied the most still had the best grades. But researchers note that those same students tended to keep a consistent schedule, and did not vary the length of study or sleep time. It was the irregular sleep schedules in particular that correlated with more academic problems.
Another case in point to support the tortoise way: slow and steady wins the race, even academically.
—Christie Nicholson
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentSo do comments work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's only because the teens probably weren't allowed to make up for the lack of sleep with caffeine :P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack in the day cramming and then a pot of coffee in the morning was SOP. But these days I'm happy that I can generally get my 8+ hours of snooze time.
So I goes "Talk Back" doesn't allow comments? (Or there is some bug on my end).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway if comments aren't allowed on certain articles (lame) sciam should get rid of the comment box.
Just lost my whole diatribe after I clicked "submit" and nothing happened! :(
Oh and Gary Stix's article "Big Hint" contains an incredibly unhelpful, mortality terror induced unscientific statement, namely:
"One benefit of the new skepticism that will arise from this new study is a redirection of gerontology away from any temptation to view the field as a means to achieve Methuselah-like lifespans and a return to its main focus of optimizing health and avoidance of chronic disease up to the time of death."
Please. In what scientific universe would it be reasonable to suppose we could hypothetically elliminate chronic disease, only to then drop dead at our predefined fixed lifespan.
Do tell, what will we then die of Mr. Stix? Magic? Some ticking clock?
What we may actually die from could be your own fervent desire to believe extending life is impossible. This eliminates all those pesky hopes and fears regarding the unlikely possibility of, say, living to 200. Interesting that he couples his denialism to a desire to live healthily--up until the supernatural point of death.
Ya can't help it--your evolutionary desire to live has to pop up somewhere! :)
By the way, I love your magazine, think it's generally top rate.
Cheers.
Also interesting he uses the word "temptation". Because clearly a desire to transcend our evolved lifespan means we are playing god and being bad christians... because those pesky women made us eat an apple and brought sin into the world...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, I accidentally let christian nonsense into my writing there for a second!
Personally, I only read the transcripts, whether I'll be commenting or not. The only reason I'm commenting now is that I was intrigued by the error you found - but it's now been corrected. Anyway, I'll return to reading the transcripts...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this