The Impact of Lunch Timing on Nap Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous research has established that food intake is a biological regulator of the human sleep-wake cycle. As such, the timing of eating relative to sleep may influence the quality of sleep, including daytime naps. Here, we examine whether the timing of lunch (1 h vs. 2 h interval between lunch and a napping opportunity) impacts the quality of an afternoon nap. METHODS: = 40, mean age = 25.8 years) consumed lunch 1 h and 2 h prior to an afternoon nap opportunity. Polysomnography and subjective self-reports were used to assess sleep architecture, sleepiness levels, and nap quality. RESULTS: Results revealed no significant differences in subjective ratings of sleep quality and sleepiness, or in sleep architecture (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, sleep stages) between the 1 h and 2-h lunch conditions. CONCLUSIONS: All sleep measures were similar when napping followed eating by either 1 h or 2 h, suggesting that eating closer to nap onset may not negatively impact sleep architecture and quality. Future research should continue to identify conditions that improve nap quality, given the well-documented benefits of naps to reduce sleep pressure and improve human performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".