Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 2601 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#sleep#brain#https#why#don#glp#long#need#cleaning#more

Discussion (129 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Rzorabout 3 hours ago
midtakeabout 2 hours ago
The article is about modulating orexins in the brain. Orexin receptor agonism was thought to be a mechanism of modafinil/armodafinil but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Modafinil is mentioned as a mere stimulant. It sort of makes me want to dismiss the article as manufactured hype for a new class of modafinil successors.
sublinearabout 1 hour ago
Yup, and even the title alone gives it away.
nemomarxabout 2 hours ago
I feel like I'd want the opposite of this - something that mimics the cleaning process of sleep that you could use in the afternoon for a nap or etc.
smallnixabout 1 hour ago
It's in the article no?

> Orexin antagonists (which block the molecules’ actions rather than mimicking it, and thus promote sleep), have been available since 2014 as treatments for insomnia. They work differently from conventional sleeping pills, which enhance GABA, one of the brain’s main inhibitory neurotransmitters. Birgitte Kornum, an expert on orexins at the University of Copenhagen, says such pills induce sedation rather than natural sleep and often lose effectiveness with continued use. Orexin antagonists instead turn down the brain’s wakefulness signal, letting its sleep-promoting systems take over. Evidence suggests this produces better sleep, with less risk of dependence and fewer long-term problems.

nemomarx20 minutes ago
That's just a sleep med, right? I mean something to let you get the repair and cleaning faster, not just induce sleep.
smallmancontrovabout 1 hour ago
Sleep isn't about cleaning. It might include cleaning, but I don't believe for a second that cleaning is the main function.

Why? Cleaning is easy to optimize yet sleep is evidently hard to optimize. Going unconscious for a big chunk of the day in a world where everything wants to eat you is a crazy price to pay, yet sleep is highly conserved across species under this extreme selective pressure. Even the animals famous for avoiding sleep don't really avoid sleep so much as bend the rules! Seals partially wake up to breathe, migrating birds sleep a hemisphere of their brain at a time, but they all sleep. This didn't happen because "pumps are slow" or "filtering is hard." Biology is excellent at copy-paste-reinventing that stuff. Optimizing the pumps and filters is not something evolution would have struggled to do if it could have meant not going unconscious for a third of the day. Especially for organisms with small brains where the transport logistics are trivial.

IMO the much more likely explanation is that the brain uses contrastive learning somewhere. We know animal brains don't use backpropagation to train and contrastive learning is one of the biggest competing family of techniques. Instead of using calculus and outer products to calculate derivatives, you feed real data and false data forward through the network and each neuron tracks and trains on the difference. This can be batched -- many CL techniques could handle 16 hours of real data followed by 8 hours of false data -- but the false data can't be put off forever, or the contrast signal goes away. Also, you probably want to inactivate I/O while the false data is flowing through. In other words: sleep emerges from first-principles on the category of neural network learning techniques that the brain probably uses.

I don't think anyone was seriously about to shoot up with sleep-replacement peptides, but also: don't. Let someone else figure this out the hard way.

nvme0n1p1about 1 hour ago
If that were true, wouldn't you expect 50 year olds (who have mostly learned how to navigate life) to need little or no sleep? Seniors sleep only a little less than young adults, still 6-8 hours a night.
smallmancontrovabout 1 hour ago
There are other known mechanisms in sleep, for example copying/condensing short-term to long-term memory by replaying it. Translating increased compression into better fundamental performance seems like a steep task and 50 year olds have already reproduced or not, so shrug
redox99about 1 hour ago
I think you overestimate the disadvantages of sleep. It's very species dependent, for some it might be a disadvantage because you're more vulnerable to predators, for others it's an advantage because you spend less energy. If you're safe you really only need enough wake time to eat and reproduce.
smallmancontrovabout 1 hour ago
If you're safe.
hyperpallium2about 1 hour ago
dreams are false data
gruez39 minutes ago
*synthetic training data
smallmancontrovabout 1 hour ago
exactly!
JumpCrisscrossabout 1 hour ago
> the much more likely explanation is that the brain uses contrastive learning somewhere

This doesn’t explain sleep in virtually brainless creatures. A metabolic root cause seems more likely.

smallmancontrovabout 1 hour ago
Why would neurons be exempt from training just because they weren't clustered into a brain? By comparison, transport-related phenomena are almost completely trivialized in the simple creatures. The existence of sleep in simple critters seems strong evidence in favor of contrastive learning over cleaning explanations.

Could you make the case for metabolic explanations? Are there a bunch of coupled mechanisms that all require downtime and couldn't possibly be phased?

toasty228about 1 hour ago
I think we made a big mistake by using biological terms for computer processes and now we have people like you coming to the """natural""" conclusion of going full circle and applying computer terms back to biological processes.

There is virtually no parrelel between both worlds besides the naming and no one has any idea about what's going on for real.

biorach18 minutes ago
I don't see a need to be dismissive. There is a lot of evidence that there is a relationship betwwen sleep and learning. The hypothesis advanced by the OP is worth evaluating on its merits rather than being dismissed as a fale equivalence.
black_knight42 minutes ago
I keep hearing that. At the same time people makes comments like the one you just answered to, using that analogy heavily. Could someone who understands both say where the analogy breaks down in this case?
volkercraigabout 2 hours ago
If you want something that displaces adenosine from your neurons you are in luck, because it already exists and is very easy to get; It's called methamphetamine
voidfuncabout 2 hours ago
Excellent, but now I have a new problem: An addiction to meth.
ssl-3about 2 hours ago
Is that worse than an addiction to sleep?
bluemoonxabout 1 hour ago
This would be incredible.

The closest thing now is amphetamine but it turns people into maniacs - presumably the action here is not actually the brain cleaning function of sleep, rather just preventing reuptake of neurotransmitting chemicals that would cause it, if allowed.

Would be nice to truly provide the mechanism in a synthetic form - I wonder what it would feel like to have the brain “slept” while awake.

gizajob29 minutes ago
This will likely turn them into a different flavour of maniac.

Just go to bed.

strictneinabout 2 hours ago
By mimic do you mean it does the cleaning process or just that you feel like it did? If it was the former, that would be very interesting.
hamdingersabout 2 hours ago
The latter is how caffeine works. Blocks adenosine receptors so you don't feel tired even though you are.
Gooblebraiabout 2 hours ago
If you don't feel tired, are you really? I'm curious what are the objective metrics to determine someone is tired
bauericabout 2 hours ago
so the former then
anigbrowlabout 2 hours ago
What if we just normalized taking naps more often?
semiquaverabout 1 hour ago
Not everyone can nap. Besides, the need to nap is an indicator of poor sleep. Why not just normalize sleeping properly (nb: rhetorical question)?
tayo42about 2 hours ago
I feel like people insist that if you get 8 hours of good sleep you shouldn't need a nap
petercooperabout 2 hours ago
Not to take away from the broader point, but modafinil is lumped in with methylphenidate as a stimulant that "increase[s] the activity of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and norepinephrine". Modafinil does also stimulate the orexin system and is part of why it's so effective for wakefulness and not as a stimulant in the medium/long-term.
egypturnashabout 2 hours ago
daquisu18 minutes ago
Related:

- Ozempic For Sleep https://www.isaak.net/sleepless/ (November 2024)

It is the same author from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41742432

He recently founded https://capable.com, also related

whyleycabout 2 hours ago
kyriakosabout 2 hours ago
general question: is there an alternative to archive.is ? it seems to be blocked in my country.
sumek83about 2 hours ago
devindotcomabout 2 hours ago
there are variations but some are shady... archive.ph, archive.today, etc. there's probably a central list somewhere.
pygy_about 2 hours ago
I thought they were alternative domains for the same service...

Regardless, I'm stuck in captcha hell whenever I try to reach them (I've tried switching browsers and DNS servers, no luck).

throw-the-towelabout 1 hour ago
archive.today and archive.fo is literally the same service.
tkfossabout 2 hours ago
check URL list on its wikipedia page.
hopppabout 2 hours ago
It sounds to me like something that's quite dangerious. Maybe it helps people with narcolepsy but maybe it will be another thing people abuse like amphetamines?
dylan604about 1 hour ago
It doesn't matter what it is, people somewhere will abuse it. Maybe doesn't need to be anywhere near the subject.
subscribedabout 2 hours ago
Modafinil is available for ages, acts close to this (it's mentioned in the article), and I don't hear of people abusing it.
projektfuabout 2 hours ago
It gets abused by people who just want to stay awake, but not in the sense of being a party drug. For example, by students, drivers, security officers, and politicians.
subscribedabout 1 hour ago
It promotes wakefulness and (allegedly) concentration. It's not a magic or amphetamines, not sure how is that an "abuse"?

Do people drinking coffee in the morning *abuse* it?

ShinyLeftPadabout 2 hours ago
I don't know of anyone using it in the first place...
FeteCommunisteabout 1 hour ago
Apparently it's used by about 10% of UK university students, according to a survey:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40979-024-00174-3

I remember there being kind of a burst of articles about it on HN about ten or fifteen years ago, with a lot of commenters talking about their use of it.

subscribedabout 1 hour ago
That's okay, they're elsewhere.
engineer_22about 2 hours ago
looks like potential for abuse is low - people with normal orexin activity could even experience diminished capacity by these drugs
MarkusQ15 minutes ago
For a minute I thought they'd found a cure for fatheads.
semiquaverabout 1 hour ago

  > Orexins are made by a small number of neurons in the hypothalamus, a brain region tucked behind the eyes.
I didn’t know that “neurons” themselves could make peptides, or anything really. Is this accurate terminology or a shorthand?
IsTom2 minutes ago
Why couldn't they, if they've got DNA and ribosomes?
FeteCommunisteabout 1 hour ago
> Orexins are only produced by a small cluster of neurons in the hypothalamus, a brain region located roughly behind the eyes and between the ears.

https://sleep.hms.harvard.edu/education-training/public-educ...

JumpCrisscrossabout 1 hour ago
> didn’t know that “neurons” themselves could make peptides

Neurons synthesize proteins [1]. (I think glia do the heavy lifting.)

[1] https://brain.mpg.de/164308/protein-supply-in-long-nerves-ho...

malfistabout 1 hour ago
According to Wikipedia its accurate. Learn something new everyday
d2kxabout 2 hours ago
Modafinil has been a lifesaver for me for over a decade, but always great to have more options for medium ADHD.
Melatonicabout 1 hour ago
Isn't it technically off label for ADHD ?
Advertisement
Fraterkesabout 2 hours ago
As an aside, are there any habitual modafinil takers here? I had a period in college where I took it very rarely when I had to cram. Worked pretty well.
margorczynskiabout 2 hours ago
Isn't the problem with lack of sleep (and what causes death with enough deprivation) oxydation that happens in the gut and spreads to the organs?

If I'm not mistaken there was an experiment using fruit flies where they fed them antioxidants and that made them not die from lack of sleep.

OutOfHereabout 2 hours ago
awestrokeabout 2 hours ago
Title implies people will flock to a pill that makes them shed gray matter
coffeefirst8 minutes ago
Yeah, I really dislike this “Thing is has its Other Thing Moment.”

For starters, I what the hell does this mean?

But it’s also a style of reporting that treats the attention cycle as the thing that must be covered rather than the thing itself.

make3about 2 hours ago
It's probably the default clickbait title for any article about a new drug.
amarcheschiabout 2 hours ago
I like my brain fatty /s
andaiabout 2 hours ago
You reminded me I need to buy more Omega 3
Melatonicabout 2 hours ago
Dont forget Omega 7 and 9 !
croisillonabout 2 hours ago
The brain may be about to have its Algernon moment

FTFY

LogicFailsMeabout 2 hours ago
Don't forget the flowers.
Gooblebraiabout 2 hours ago
What has anything in this article to do with Ozempic? Is mentioned in the title once and never again. Engagement bait?
projektfuabout 2 hours ago
"Hunger and sleep, argues Dan Skovronsky, the firm’s chief scientific officer, are both 'master homeostasis mechanisms'—systems that keep the body in balance. When they misbehave, illness follows. That, he says, helps explain why incretins, the hormone family behind GLP-1, proved so broadly useful. Hence why orexins could be just as important."

Also, orexins are peptides, like semaglutide (Ozempic), although in a different family.

_diyarabout 2 hours ago
Ozempic is the poster boy for peptides.
matt_heimerabout 2 hours ago
Ozempic == GLP-1 which the first visible paragraph is discussing.
RIMRabout 2 hours ago
Your brain is gonna lose so much weight!
FeteCommunisteabout 2 hours ago
Neural minimalism, the newest health trend coming to a social network near you.
barapaabout 2 hours ago
Every conceivable thing 'may be about to' happen.
wesselbindtabout 2 hours ago
Literally everything except the media writing non-sensationalist headlines about science.
Liftyeeabout 2 hours ago
Sleep is Lindy... obesity and constant wakefulness are not.

The sad fact is that people will be pressured into taking this.

E: Lindy was probably the wrong term. But still, it's like Chesterton's fence. We are far from fully understanding human biology... and deleting sleep will lead to unknown effects. All power to those who try, I guess.

andybakabout 2 hours ago
Is "Lindy" a typo or have I missed another linguistic innovation?
gottorfabout 2 hours ago
Another linguistic innovation[0] -- the idea that things that have been around for a long time are more likely to persist for another long time.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

shimmanabout 2 hours ago
This feels like a stupid heuristic to use if applied to biological forces.
testdelacc1about 2 hours ago
It’s some shit a guy called Taleb came up with. It’s a useful indicator because someone quoting Taleb unironically is someone who can’t tell that Taleb is a midwit.
strictneinabout 2 hours ago
I was kind of shocked how bad some of his writing and "logic" were after hearing people rave about his books for years.
knowaveragejoeabout 2 hours ago
Seems like it predates him significantly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect#History

glerkabout 2 hours ago
Aging and cancer are also Lindy.

Two things you'll always find someone to defend with vigor are sleep and death. A lot of humans seem to despise living in general. It's fascinating to see.

adamtaylor_13about 1 hour ago
Well... Sleep and death are natural. I'm not convinced you see people "defend" death so much as (rightly) acknowledging the inevitability of it.

The latter half of your comment is rather smug, but I wouldn't look down on people who have peacefully accepted reality. Time is fleeting and we are but flowers in a field—briefly brightly bloomed and then withered.

glerk22 minutes ago
> I wouldn't look down on people who have peacefully accepted reality

Throughout human history, all progress was achieved by people who refused to "peacefully accept reality". But I hope you also get to reap the benefits and correct your depressing mindset some day.

axus25 minutes ago
Society would adapt without sleep, but ending death would mark the beginning of a nightmare humanity never wakes up from.
glerk21 minutes ago
Like clockwork :)
ben_wabout 2 hours ago
Sleep is less surprising for me to see people defend than death, to the extent that I'm not sure if I myself have or not done so.

I mean, I can directly feel the benefit of a good sleep that refreshes me in the morning, whereas there's those who have passed on whom I miss.

If I didn't need sleep, really didn't, I wouldn't seek to re-invent it; but of the two it is old age that I'd actively pay money to hold back, if treatments for both existed at the same cost per extra hour of consciousness in my lifetime.

glerkabout 2 hours ago
Obviously, every single one of us needs sleep to survive. But it's a biological chore, not some sacred ritual to be celebrated. Reducing the amount of sleep that we need is worth researching. What is surprising to me is the knee-jerk reaction I see whenever the idea of looking into this is brought up.
FeteCommunisteabout 2 hours ago
Even if I never needed to sleep again I would kind of miss dreaming. Maybe we could take another drug to make us dream.
Melatonicabout 2 hours ago
I think the real question with Ozempic is.....why are so many people's bodies not producing enough natural GLP-1 in the first place?

Ozempic is for sure a miracle for some who really need it but for many I think they would be better off by solving that problem at the source (likely gut bacteria based and consuming a better mix of prebiotic fibers). Increase your natural levels of GLP-1

teifererabout 1 hour ago
> I think the real question with Ozempic is.....why are so many bodies not producing enough natural GLP-1 in the first place?

That's pretty easy: The last centuries (or decades, mostly) have provided an asymmetry in nutrition systems. Modern food engineering has optimized most of what people eat to have them crave more instead of being mainly filling. There is little to counter that, and GLP-1 is a way to do that. Another way is will power. Yet another is fixing what and how you eat (and how you exercise, but that'a a different topic).

Melatonicabout 1 hour ago
Exactly. And that last one is the most important for long term results.

Plus it's not like you couldn't combine a GLP-1 drug with great diet and exercise

kube-system35 minutes ago
Diet and exercise guidance is the standard of care for prescribing GLP1s.

But prescribing diet and exercise alone has long had mixed results, because it does nothing to address appetite, and it is even quite common for exercise to increase it.

JumpCrisscrossabout 1 hour ago
> that last one is the most important for long term results

Empirically untrue. GLP-1s outperform diet and exercise alone.

> it's not like you couldn't combine a GLP-1 drug with great diet and exercise

This is how it's recommended to be taken. I personally know folks who were able to start regularly exercising and eating healthily because of the head start GLP-1s gave them. (They're mostly off them now, and they're all materially lighter and healthier than they were before.)

JumpCrisscrossabout 1 hour ago
> the real question with Ozempic is.....why are so many bodies not producing enough natural GLP-1 in the first place?

Why can’t we synthesize vitamin C?

The root-cause solution to vitamin C deficiency is supplementation (through food or otherwise). If our bodies couldn’t figure something like this out, something the rest of the animal kingdom (apart from guinea pigs) did, it strikes me as conceivable is badly optimized in other cases, too.

IncreasePostsabout 1 hour ago
Our bodies did figure it out(our common ancestor with the wet nosed primates could synthesize vitamin C).

But our bodies also figured out that for an extended period of time this ability was useless since vitamin C was so readily available in all our food sources in most circumstances.

JumpCrisscrossabout 1 hour ago
> our bodies also figured out that for an extended period of time this ability was useless since vitamin C was so readily available in all our food sources in most circumstances

But none of the other animals in our biomes similarly optimized? Including none of the other apes?

The less Panglossian interpretation is a gene got fucked up, it didn't wipe us out, and the fuck-up got conserved because it doesn't kill us before reproduction, it just makes us sicker from time to time.

FeteCommunisteabout 1 hour ago
Our "natural" impulse is to eat everything tasty within reach until we're full. That's not so healthy when the tasty stuff regularly includes foods like liter soft drinks, ice cream sandwiches, French fries, and so on. Our bodies didn't evolve with calorie-bombs constantly just a drive-thru trip away.
thinkingtoiletabout 2 hours ago
Millions of years of evolution and selection ending up at humans needing one food supply and lifestyle while modern life is basically the opposite. Endless calories. Sugar and meat everywhere. Our bodies are did not evolve for modern life. That's why.
cpursley23 minutes ago
Meat? Errrr, did you mean to write refined white carbs? Those obsidian spear points were not for shucking corn…
IncreasePostsabout 1 hour ago
Because on an evolutionary time scale, we never had a consistent surplus of calories over a long period of time.

Imagine Grog and gang kill a mammoth but Grog only eats 500 calories before feeling so full he's going to throw up.