And if not, then maybe try just being up for a few minutes. Maybe don’t get out of bed. And we (or at least I) will call that WBTB, even though technically you never left bed, and you can call it whatever you like, nickspry (or any elseperson). 
Milod,
Fair comment. I agree with all you said there.
There is this discrepancy though with the use of this term. (interpretation of it seems to be different from forum to forum).
Perhaps what DreamAddict suggested in his last post could be a good idea. Why not call one method the Sleep/Wake/Back to sleep method, and the other the Sleep/Wake/Back to bed method.
Both methods seem to work very well for different individuals/lifestyles, and this would avoid confusion between the two.
To make this work I think we would have to start a new topic (so hopefully most people would read it) explaining the reasons.
I think these techniques must be clearly defined, simply to avoid confusion when responding to/or reading posts.
I also take on board your comment about the way I approached the subject. I did kinda bowl in there in a dictatorial style. Thanks for pointing this out ( I’d had a few beers that night! )
All the best,
Nick.
Only problem is that the difference is not immediately obvious. After all, WBTB is a variation on WBTS, isn’t it?
Another problem is that new acronyms have trouble going into common use, and it probably won’t catch on at other forums.
Another problem is that people might get up for 10 minutes getting out of bed, but not doing much. (Maybe reality checks.)
Apparently you are right. It seems some people forget that “wake back to bed” means you have to get out of bed! 
Even the currently used acronyms are being misunderstood and misused.
Your suggestion here is a variation of WBTB …, and so it’s technically no longer the original “WBTB method.” It’s more appropriately titled “wake back to sleep”
You have it backwards, WBTS was mentioned yesterday … and WBTB is pretty old and well tested.
The idea of new acronyms for techniques is to “abbreviate” the long instructions of a technique to a few letters. It’s created for easy reference, not to win a “grammy” for “best new acronym” 
Since it seems some people want to “pollute” the original idea of the WBTB method with “you dont have to get out of bed” … it only seems rational to make this idea a whole new technique. Embrace it, because it is your technique. If you don’t get out of bed, you are not doing the “wake back to bed” It’s that simple. 
The WBTB method works for those not too lazy to actually perform it. It’s not the techniques fault!! If they are too lazy to get out of bed and they go back to sleep … well they decided to try the “WBTS” method instead of the “WBTB”
It’s really simple and obvious once you know the difference between the two.
but I’m sticking to my claims … if you don’t get out of bed for WBTB … then you are not doing a proper WBTB … You are altering the original idea to something of your own.
Lucidity.com recommends at least 1 hour of wakefullness for increased chance at lucidity.
“An Hour of Wakefulness Before Morning Naps Makes Lucidity More Likely”
lucidity.com/NL63.RU.Naps.html
blah blah blah, they did some testing, blah blah, and they concluded:
1 hour is a long time to sit in bed awake. and from this study 10 minutes awake has a very low chance of lucidity afterwards. The “WBTS” method already sucks and it’s not even 24 hours old! 
Please people!! there is no “good” lazy man lucid dreaming method!! Stick to the orignial idea and do something wakeful for at least 1 hour. From that page it says
That’s something wakeful you can do in bed for an hour!
but please don’t listen to the suggestions you can wake up long enough to read a clock and expect to lucid dream. That’s NOT a proper WBTB.
I think that answer’s that…
Think about it from the very simple point of view of looking at the acronyms:
WBTS is waking up after some sleep and then returning back to sleep
WBTB is waking up after some sleep, getting out of bed and then returning back to bed-and-sleep
See? It’s a non-intuitive distinction that WBTB is not actually a type of WBTS, but they are two similar but non-overlapping techniques.
I meant that if we decide to put this acronym in the glossary, it probably won’t be used much and we’ll get lots of newbies asking us what the difference is between WBTB and WBTS, etc.
DA: That’s very nice, but after one hour of being awake I suspect not being able to get asleep again. My bed is the top of a bunk bed (well, it has a desk underneath it) so if I want to get out of bed I have to go up and down the ladder thing. My options are like so in WBTB time:
In bed:
- Read a book with the lamp
- Play with my mobile
- Pen and paper
- Puzzles
Out of bed:
- Eat/drink (likely to keep me awake)
- Computer stuff (certain to keep me awake, whatever I do)
- Read a book out of bed (why? WHY?!)
- Watch TV (likely to keep me awake)
I can’t phone anybody to have a talk, nor can I do homework or coursework in front of the computer.
See my problem? I am unable to hold my attention on my mobile phone (which has the 15 puzzle on it and very little else) for an hour, so the only option appears to be reading a book in bed. And no, I will not be able to fall asleep after 60 minutes of being awake.
No, it’s far older. I think the MILD topic had a few mentions of WBTB… many people got up for very short amounts of time.
so you don’t want to climb down/up your ladder! 
I’m sorry, I just found that funny.
That’s fine if it works for you, but please don’t preach the WBTB method as being done “after only waking for 10 minutes”
because here is research that proves it’s best when performed with 1 hour of wakefulness.
DreamAddict,
I agree totally with all you said there. The sleep/wake/back to bed method has been around for a long time and is a very specific method. It has been misinterpreted on this forum (and others). Different interpretations of it can only lead to confusion.
I believe that (maybe) all this confusion was created by someone who was using the MILD method (which of course involves waking briefly between REM periods and then reinforcing your intention in a specific way as you go back to sleep).
However, many users of this forum seem determined to continue using the Sleep/wake/back to bed “phrase” to describe any period of brief awakening.
I think that the only way around this is to do what we suggested earlier and call one method the"Sleep/wake/back to bed" method and the other the “Sleep/wake /back to sleep” method…
It seems to be the only way to avoid confusion on this forum.
Again I insist: WBTS (as you’de like me to call it ) is not required for MILD. It is optional. Why do you think it’s compulsory? Even the Lucidity Institute says on its website…
R3m0t,
Sorry but you’re wrong again. The distinction is very simple. One method involves waking very briefly, the other doesn’t.
I think that the method you know as the sleep/wake/back to bed method is a simple misuse of the MILD technique ie: when using MILD you need to wake briefly between REM periods in order to reinforce your intention in a very specific way.
However, the SLEEP/WAKE/BACK to bed method has been around for quite some time - much longer than this forum for instance. This is why you should avoid the miss-use of these terms, it only leads to confusion.
Get on side R3m0t, we’re all working for the same end aren’t we - more lucid dreams!
LEAVE r3m0t ALoNE!!!
konnaart,
don’t be silly. we’re all working for a common end here ( and arguments are part of the proccess ). What’s your take on things?..
nickspry and DreamAddict have both convinced me. Perhaps we should change the names of the techniques to differentiate them from each other.
So, we will have the WBTB which is Labarge’s technique. Then WBTS which is where you stay up as long or as little as you please. Does anyone think this will make things more clear? Or do you think it will make people more confused?
It is not a matter of laziness (at least not on my part anyway). I just found that for me WBTS works better than WBTB. However, I should also point out that I do WBTS / WILD not MILD and that could well be the difference. Though, there are times where I fail with WILD and still have MILD like lucid dreams. So, I believe that WBTS / MILD does work as well. Which method is superior? I think that will vary from person to person like any other induction technique.
Again you say it! I repeat, waking up in the night is not required for MILD. Wait a moment… why has everybody been saying MILD ought to be used before falling asleep? This is insane; I give up!
Don’t worry about konnart, we just joke between us now. Soon I will unleash the secret weapon I have planned for the last… I mean, we’re friends now.
milod789: WBTS ought to be as little as you like, not as long as you like. If the times overlap then the distiction would be whether or not you literally get out of bed, which in my opinion would be quite pointless. (See my previous post in this thread explaining why staying in bed is, for me, infinitely superior).
my take on things is that my name is spelled with two N’s and one R…
konnart,…not konaart…but we can thank r3m0t for the confusion on it’s spelling.
And also, im for anything that put’s R three m zero T to the boiling point…but be easy on him so he will have mercy on me when he unleashes his secret weapon… 
r3m0t,
The MILD method does involve waking briefly betweem REM periods. The method was devised by Stephen Laberge during his work at Stanford university. Just read chapter 3 of his last book “Exploring the world of lucid dreaming”. It explains the method in-depth. I presume you’re now going to tell me he didn’t invent the method. (if you are, please take it up with him in person, I’m sure he’d be more than willing to provide you with the proof). What you are basing your argument on are false interpretations of this method which have now become commonly used on this and other forums. If you haven’t read the book, please read it.
I’m not interested in scoring points here. I just want the right interpretations of these methods to be used in order to avoid confusion.
Nick.
That is where I have to disagree with you. The MILD method does not require Brief awakenings. There are plenty of people who do MILD at bed time, WBTS, and of course the WBTB all with great success.I can agree with you on differentiating between the two methods but, I can not agree that MILD requires the WBTB method. On this you are wrong. Labarge does not say that in his book.
I agree. I must not have been paying attention when I typed that.
I also agree with that as well. I have tried the staying up for an hour and 1/2 then going back to sleep often with no results. However, the WBTS (staying up for only a few minutes or even seconds)method for me became a very powerful technique.
And I thought MILD required WBTS… 
Even if it is only long enough to think: “Hey, it was a funny dream, the next one gonna be lucid…” With an alternative technique (mini-WBTB), when you get up for fifteen minutes to be sure you were awake…
No MILD does not require WBTS or WBTB however, you can greatly increase your chances by using WBTB or WBTS.