Too many sleepless nights may lead to weight gain 40%

By Mary Randolph0%

7/6/2026, 2:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Availability Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 28.8% saturation with 153 hits. Analysis detected 1,150 faulty-reasoning hits from 531 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.8% and a BS Rank of 40% (13,328 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.90% of the article peer group.

Less time sleeping may mean more time sitting down—and more weight gained, according to a new study. 
The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, found that getting just 90 minutes less sleep each night for six weeks led study participants to sit around more and gain weight. 
This study included 95 people who typically slept seven or eight hours each night. 
After the six weeks of sleep deprivation, however, the participants had gained about a pound, on average, and their sedentary time had increased by an average of 17 minutes. 
Men and postmenopausal women became the most sedentary, spending an average of 30 extra minutes sitting each day. 
This isn’t the first time researchers have connected sleep to weight, and particularly to obesity. 
In fact, not getting enough shut-eye is linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and other health problems, and more sedentary people are also at higher risk for chronic diseases. 
But many previous studies exploring sleep and weight have been conducted in labs—meaning they often take place over just a few days—and have involved far more drastic reductions in sleep, such as allowing participants a mere four hours of sleep over three days. 
Short sleep-restriction studies don’t reflect the effects of chronic behavior that leads to these issues, says Marie-Pierre St-Onge, the study’s senior author and a professor of nutritional medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 
She argues that a six-week experiment conducted outside the lab and involving milder sleep restrictions is a more accurate representation of the realities of chronic mild sleep deprivation, which roughly 30 percent of adults experience, according to the authors. 
“It’s a more naturalistic experiment, it more closely aligns with what we see, and it provides a message that’s directly applicable to what people actually feel,” she says. 
In separate studies involving the same participants, she and her team have found that a decrease in sleep can raise the risk of type 2 diabetes and heart problems among certain groups. 
The study stands out because it shows that lack of sleep is both associated with excess weight and that it causes weight gain, says Jean-Philippe Chaput, a senior scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, who studies sleep health and obesity and was not involved in this research. 
“It shows what we already know in a more robust study design,” Chaput says. 
One pound of weight gain over six weeks may not seem like a lot, Chaput adds, but it could become more significant if participants kept the same habits for many more months or years. 
St-Onge hopes to focus her future research on potential interventions and the positive impact of getting enough sleep, she says. 
“It’s easy to say that if you restrict your sleep, you have bad health outcomes. 
But the goal in life is not to do something bad to see if it has bad outcomes,” she says. 
“The goal in life is to do something good and then determine if it has healthful outcomes. 
So I think we should do a lot more of that now that we know that short sleep is not good.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Mary Randolph: 3.1%Scientific American: 3.0%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 5.5%Mary Randolph: 2.0%Scientific American: 0.9%Anchoring Bias5.5%This article: 15.8%Mary Randolph: 2.4%Scientific American: 2.6%Availability Heuristic15.8%This article: 8.1%Mary Randolph: 2.2%Scientific American: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic8.1%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.2%Scientific American: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Mary Randolph: 3.1%Scientific American: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias25.8%This article: 5.5%Mary Randolph: 1.9%Scientific American: 4.2%Framing Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.1%Scientific American: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.8%Scientific American: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.1%Mary Randolph: 3.2%Scientific American: 3.0%Optimism Bias15.1%This article: 3.2%Mary Randolph: 0.2%Scientific American: 1.1%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 8.1%Mary Randolph: 2.9%Scientific American: 3.3%Negativity Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 6.4%Mary Randolph: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.9%Scientific American: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Mary Randolph: 1.3%Scientific American: 0.8%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.3%Scientific American: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.2%Scientific American: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.4%Scientific American: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.5%Mary Randolph: 4.5%Scientific American: 4.3%Appeal to Authority24.5%This article: 2.8%Mary Randolph: 0.5%Scientific American: 1.8%False Dilemma2.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.9%Mary Randolph: 3.8%Scientific American: 4.1%Hasty Generalization11.9%This article: 8.1%Mary Randolph: 0.4%Scientific American: 0.2%Red Herring8.1%This article: 2.8%Mary Randolph: 0.8%Scientific American: 0.6%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 3.8%Mary Randolph: 2.9%Scientific American: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion3.8%This article: 11.3%Mary Randolph: 0.6%Scientific American: 0.6%Begging the Question11.3%This article: 28.8%Mary Randolph: 5.7%Scientific American: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)28.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Mary Randolph: 0.7%Scientific American: 0.6%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 3.2%Mary Randolph: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.4%Appeal to Nature3.2%This article: 3.4%Mary Randolph: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.3%Composition/Division3.4%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 1.0%Scientific American: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.2%Mary Randolph: 1.5%Scientific American: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.2%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 1.9%Scientific American: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.8%Mary Randolph: 2.0%Scientific American: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice2.8%This article: 4.0%Mary Randolph: 1.0%Scientific American: 1.8%Indoctrination4.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Randolph: 2.6%Scientific American: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

531 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers61%attributed speech208writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 34 words • 0.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 39 words • 0.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJean-Philippe Chaput • 49 words • 0.0% coverageJean-Philippe Chaput • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJean-Philippe Chaput • 34 words • 0.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 15 words • 100.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMarie-Pierre St-Onge • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jean-Philippe Chaput

100%flagged-word coverage
97 attributed words30% of attributed speech93% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.