[Tenoke]

I specifically cited the actual results from the meta-analysis. In the conclusion and abstract they seem to mostly talk about 7-8 vs really short or longer sleep but when you look at the analysis there's barely any adverse effects at 6 (and indeed 6 is better than 8 and only a tiny bit worse than 7 on the most important thing from most studies - all-cause mortality).

Yes, of course sleeping, say, 2 hours a night is too little. My claims and quotations were about 6 hours, which is roughly what the people in OP slept, too.

[Pyramus]

It seems to me you are picking one outcome, all-cause mortality (link to the study in question with nice dose-response curves [1]) but ignoring cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, brain health, cognitive function, falls, accidents and injuries, and obesity?

> My claims and quotations were about 6 hours, which is roughly what the people in OP slept, too.

It's not clear how comparable the numbers are. The study from OP [2] reports sleep as measured by actigraphy (5.5h), time in bed (8h) and self-reported sleep (7.2h). What the meta-analyses most likely have studied (I haven't checked) is self-reported sleep.

[1] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/JAHA.117.005947

[2] https://economics.mit.edu/files/16994

[Tenoke]

I cited 4 outcomes, starting with both the most important one and the one with most studies and subjects behind it. There wasn't an outcome where the big negative effect is there at 6.

You are proving my point - even when presented with data against the 8 hours myth you try to twist it in every way to confirm your prior belief and wouldn't even consider if the data might just be correct.