ehBeth wrote:Aren't there already quite a few studies on decreased life expectancies for shift workers? Messed up circadian rhythms. Yup.
i'm not sure the validity of the studies only because it seems that society(and it seems the studies) is built around a certain 9 to 5 cycle that--I would guess-- most people have(hence the study's questionability). That is to say, their 24 hour cycle runs in synch with that of the 9 to 5 world.
I have a cycle that doesn't run in synch. Now, this doesn't mean that my rhythms are messed up at all, only that they are out of synch with most people's. In other words, my circadian rhythms are running fine, they are just out of synch.
humans have a "free running" cycle that is slightly longer than 24 hours. "Free running" means if there is nothing to set the internal clock with. Usually, light/dark sets the clock... i.e 8 to 14 hours of light, and 16 to 10 hours of dark is sufficient to set the clock (or clocks) that run everything from hormone cycles, potassium levels, urine output, sleep/wake, etc. Now, get below a certain threshold, and the internal oscillators don't get enough input to "entrain" to a 24 hour cycle...
So the Alaskan study would indicate since they were in somewhat "free running" conditions, they would have a performance increase since they were being allowed to synch their circadian cycles with their activity cycles.