| I work in neurotech/sleeptech and though I commend @dmvaldman on the project, it falls for some of the common flaws of current sleep medicine/research and some strange decisions in the program itself. Measuring sleep by time is an antiquated idea, and the industry is just barely starting to move away from this metric. You wouldn't measure your diet based on how much time you spend chewing. Decreased slow-wave activity, the hallmark of deep sleep, can increase time spent in deep sleep as your brain tries to compensate for the lack. This only works to a certain point, and with significant decrease, such as after drinking alcohol, your brain is unable to make up for the deficit and is actually unable to stay in deep sleep. The deep sleep length doesn't map directly to function. Chess is an interesting metric because there is an opponent being played against, so what does that really say about the players mental clarity? There are too many factors. I wonder if sleep regularity (consistent wake in particular) was a metric which was fed into the algorithm, and if it did not correlate? Though many people say "garmin (smartwatch X) isn't good at tracking" that misses the point that tracking time isn't a valuable metric, and why so many people say "my sleep score doesn't match what my watch tells me". Beyond just tracking, we have the ability to directly enhance the Neural Function of Sleep, and this is what we're working on at https://affectablesleep.com However breaking people away from the "sleep time metric" is a challenging one. |