Talk:Basic rest–activity cycle

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Basic rest–activity cycle is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Now styled as "basic rest-activity cycle"

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095450905 shows it this styled this way, with a hyphen-minus rather than an ndash. To my eye, an ndash would render this as (basic rest)–(activity cycle) which is not the right semantics. Certainly, regardless of symbol, rest-activity is intended to be read as a balanced phrase. — MaxEnt 04:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible waste of time

BRAC seems to be an idea that sank without a ripple. Very difficult to find contemporary articles on this subject. It's dishonest to present Kleitman as discovering 90-minute cycles in sleep, then to suggest that "he went on" to conceive of BRAC, as though it's a fruitful concept full of promise. Rather, he read the Italian research on 50-minute cycles in infants, that made him more flexible when he interpreted the data about sleep cycles, end of story. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]