Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was out with some forumites last night and it came to my attention that I seem to go to bed the earliest.. Im a strict 8 hour of sleep a night girl and past 10.30 I start to get a little crabby..


Aforementioned forumites all seem to push the envelope and dont get to bed before midnight whilst only getting up slightly later than me! ::o


Am I the only one that needs a good 8 hours or are there others like me?


:))

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4868-bed-time/
Share on other sites

BB I totally agree with you on the recharge.. I rarely have a lie in my body just seems to wake up early naturally hence my lovely early bed time..


If I could be in bed earlier than 10.30 I so would but my better half would have something to say about it.. :( Damn those late to bedders!! ;-)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4868-bed-time/#findComment-156499
Share on other sites

Well I love 8 hours and I'm probably capable of more at least once a week! I like an early night but probably more often go to bed around 11 if I am home and not doing much. I would prefer to sleep in than go to bed early though, I hate early mornings!


Ladygooner - my mum always said that too, how can it be really true though, surely sleep is just sleep? Perhaps a ploy to get us into bed early....

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4868-bed-time/#findComment-156520
Share on other sites

I need at LEAST eight hours every night.

I can only exist on less if what is occurring in the day is very exciting for example a good day of my work or a day trip, but then the next night I need more!

I HATE hate HATE early mornings, specially in this cold weather, and rarely get up before 9.00am even if I have gone to bed at 11! Friday I have to be at court in Kent at 9 and panicking already!


Really impressed at those who say they can exist on 4 or 5.

I read people need less sleep as they get older.

When does that start then; I'm older than I was!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4868-bed-time/#findComment-156552
Share on other sites

They say that Winston Churchill survived on 4 - 5 hours per night which was true except he also frequently went back to bed in the afternoons. Thatcher claimed to survive on 4 - 5 hours per night, which is true, but doesn't count on account of the fact that she was not exactly human.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4868-bed-time/#findComment-156566
Share on other sites

citizenED Wrote:


> Thatcher claimed to survive on 4 - 5 hours per

> night, which is true, but doesn't count on account

> of the fact that she was not exactly human.


Mmmm, every so often I go into a period of surviving on 4 hours sleep a night. The adrenalin kicks in and I feel absolutely marvellous - and I think I'm terribly productive and performing at my absolute peak.


I usually realise about two weeks in that I have actually become absolutely barmy and could well be sectioned at any moment!


I wonder if that was the case with Thatcher....

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4868-bed-time/#findComment-156603
Share on other sites

I'm sure I would feel better when the alarm clock went off if I got a good 8 hours in first. However, I like to have some time to myself before I go to bed in the evening, and I often work late, so it's not unusual for me to only get to bed 11.30-12, and then I often read in bed, and if I get really gripped by something it might be well past midnight before I get to sleep.


I reckon most of the week I get by on 6-7 hours max, and I can still function at work on 4. Have done so on less when I've been working especially daft hours, though I can only keep that up for a couple of days before I start to get a bit dizzy with exhaustion.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4868-bed-time/#findComment-156680
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The fundamental problem at present is that the government has been given to belief that if they took it into public ownership, they'd have to pay all its billions of debts. This, oddly, is not a problem that's dogged any of its previous owners, and a very simple solution would be to fine it, say, £40bn for being useless and then pick it up for free. So that's possible. However one of the compelling arguments that got it privatised in the first place was that government-run operations aren't often very well run. They might promise 40 new reservoirs to get them through an election, but that's the last you'll hear of it till the water-rates bill arrives, and there's precious little in the way of economic "growth" to be had out of processing sewage. There are advantages, perhaps, to having an accountable hand on the tiller, but governments, and their agencies, tend not to very accountable. Last December, for example, the Office for Environmental Protection released a report detailing how DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Ofwat had all failed in their legal duties, but as the OEP's powers extend only to writing reports, that's as far as it went. An alternative might be to have it run as an autonomous business, with the government holding the only share. But that's what they did with the Post Office where any benefits of privatisation have become only a boondoggle for lawyers. Not that lawyers don't deserve the compulsory generosity of taxpayers, but their needs must surely be secondary to the Post Office's vital core missions of re-selling stamps, not handing out pensions and cooking the digital books. Which leaves us, I think, in need of a Third Way. That might seem a little too Blairite for some, but I think there's a way to add a Corbynish gloss by setting it up as a co-operative, owned not by the state but by its customers, who would have an interest in striking a balance between increasing bills, maintaining supplies and preserving their own environment, and who'd be able to hold the management to account without having to go through a web of five regulators by way of the office of a part-time representative with an eye on a job in the Cabinet. There are risks with that, of course, in that the shoutiest can exert the most influence, and the shoutiest are not often the most wise, but with everyone having an equal stake, the shoutiest usually get shouted down, which is why co-operatives tend to last longer than businesses steered by cliques of shareholders or political advisers. In other words, the optimum and correct path to take is tried and tested and sitting right there and I'll eat my hat if it happens.  
    • At least the situation with rail travel  is being addressed.
    • It would cost so much  now.  But pay off for us in the long run. Thatcher and her privatisation of public services.  It is a total disaster 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...