Does the moon influence the human body? (next full moon? July 2)

Does the moon influence the human body?

The question has stirred for ages, and a group of scientists in Switzerland recently reported that they’ve found evidence (they called it “statistically significant”) that human sleep suffers during a full moon. The study, though well controlled, was small (just 33 individuals) and skeptics were quick to challenge their claims (Fred Turek, a chronobiologist at Northwestern University, told NPR: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and the new study, said Turek, falls far short of providing that evidence).

Nonetheless, the scientists’ claims were noteworthy. Said the study report: “We found that around the full moon, EEG delta activity during NREM sleep, an indicator of deep sleep, decreased by 30%, time to fall asleep increased by 5 minutes, and EEG-assessed total sleep duration was reduced by 20 minutes.” So less total sleep, diminished deep sleep and lower melatonin levels. 

The researchers, led by Christian Cajochen, who studies circadian rhythms and sleep at the University of Basel, added: “. . . to our knowledge, this is the first report of a lunar influence on objective sleep parameters such as EEG activity during NREM sleep and a hormonal marker of the circadian timing system (melatonin) in humans . . . .”  They went on: “This is the first reliable evidence that a lunar rhythm can modulate sleep structure in humans when measured under the highly controlled conditions of a circadian laboratory study protocol without time cues.”  In other words, the subjects were in lab rooms for days on end, without any cues from natural light.

Author Niall McCrae, in a piece written for www.theconversation.com, noted: “. . . [T]he results suggest that humans might have an innate circalunar rhythm, that is, a body clock of physiological activity with a length that roughly correlates to the length of the lunar cycle (29.5 days).” Quoting the study, McCrae said that “at full moon, the peak in melatonin levels was delayed by around 50 minutes.” Concluded McCrae, author of a book on the moon and its influence on mental illness: “Christian Cajochen and fellow chronobiologists [have] provided perhaps the strongest indication yet that the moon really does affect the mind.”

Do animals have a circalunar clock?  Cajochen and colleagues cited recent research which found such a clock in a marine midge. “This circalunar clock is thought to tick inside many animals, running in synchrony with the tides and working in conjunction with the animals’ circadian clock.” The researchers cited a study by Wilelski and Hau which “found that those Galapagos marine iguanas with the most accurate circalunar clock were most likely to survive tough times, presumably because they were the best at reaching feeding spots first . . . . ”

So, while Cajochen and fellow chronobiologists keep looking for answers (said the report: “It remains challenging to unravel the neuronal underpinnings of such a putative lunar clock in humans”), you might consider going to bed a touch earlier this Thursday, July 2. After all, it’s a full moon.

##

Becoming an expert: is 10,000 hours still the mark?

Becoming an expert: is 10,000 hours still the mark?  

The notion has been circulating for decades: to become an expert, you need to practice for 10,000 hours (and in case you’re wondering just how long that is - and I was – if you practiced two hours a day for nearly 14 years, that would equal 10,000 hours). 

But the notion, like so many, has come under fire, leading to these poignant questions: does this theory apply equally to skills which are physical (e.g., tennis, violin), cognitive (e.g., chess) and social? And how do you account for the fact that some athletes, and chess players, become proficient in far less than 10,000 hours?  Further, is it any type of practice? Or something more specific?

The most recent challenge was logged by a group of psychologists from five universities (Michigan State, Rice, Southern Illinois, the University of Liverpool and Edith Cowman University in Australia). They rebuffed the 10,000-hour claim made popular by Malcolm Gladwell in his 1993 book Outliers. Said the researchers, as quoted by Shaunacy Ferro in a piece for fastcodesign.com:

"The evidence is quite clear that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice."

Both Gladwell and Andrew Ericsson (the Florida State University psychologist whose work generated the 10,000-hour finding) have taken issue with their critiques – Gladwell maintains that the rule applies to “cognitively demanding tasks” (e.g., chess, violin) “and not physical attributes,” according to a Forbes.com article. And Ericsson argues that “his critics had examined too many beginners rather than expert performers,” according to Ferro’s piece.

Practice, these critiques maintain, can only explain one-third of the variation in performance, according to Ferro, who concludes: “. . . practice alone won't make you Yo Yo Ma. It could also have to do with personality, the age you started, intelligence, or something else entirely.”

So what does it take, to become an expert?

Apparently, it’s something called “deliberate practice,” which its author maintains is neither work nor play: 

“Deliberate practice is . . . not just business as usual. . . . Deliberate practice is not work and it is not play. Those activities are important, but they don’t count toward your 10,000 hours. 

Work is where we exercise the skills we already have. . . . [The] performance improvement from time spent at work is minimal compared to time spent in deliberate practice. That fact that you’ve managed a team for 10 years doesn’t automatically make you a world-class manager. Work isn’t deliberate practice.”

So what is deliberate practice? According to expertenough.com: "Deliberate practice is a highly structured activity engaged in with the specific goal of improving performance. Deliberate practice is different from work, play and simple repetition of a task. It requires effort, it has no monetary reward, and it is not inherently enjoyable. When you engage in deliberate practice, improving your performance over time is your goal and motivation."

Daniel Goleman, in his book Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence, quoted Ericsson as saying:

“You don’t get benefits from mechanical repetition, but by adjusting your execution over and over to get closer to your goal.”

So, the question is, in your bid to become more proficient (say, at tennis, golf, or as a performer), how much “deliberate practice” are you putting in?  In other words, is your practice focused on improving?  Or is it more repetitious in nature? 

Think now, for a moment, about the world-class tennis athletes who took the world stage the last two weeks at the French Open in Paris. How many hours have they put in? And how many of those, do you think, involved deliberate practice?

The bottom line: it now seems a touch obvious that proficiency, in any realm, is more a matter of concentration and focus than mere hours.  In his book, Goleman noted:

“After about 50 hours of training – whether in skiing or driving – people get to that ‘good-enough’ performance level, where they can go through the motions more or less effortlessly. They no longer feel the need for concentrated practice, but are content to coast on what they’ve learned. No matter how much more they practice in this bottom-up mode, their improvement will be negligible.”

Or, perhaps, expertise is connected to love. Here’s what wisdomgroup.com had to say:

“The elite don’t just work harder than everybody else. At some point the elites fall in love with practice to the point where they want to do little else.”

##