I don't see how your post could be "also" to the parent post: It's saying to be skeptical of the claims due to lack of evidence, while your post contrarily implies that this is already established knowledge.
I think he's saying that the conclusion from the historical study (people used to have bi-modal sleep patterns) isn't exactly revolutionary either. So it's in line with the parent post in that there's not really anything noteworthy in the article.
