Instinctive sleeping and resting postures: an anthropological study (2000) | Hacker News Reader

Instinctive sleeping and resting postures: an anthropological study (2000)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

128 pointsrajnathani46 comments

"If you are a medical professional and have been trained in a “civilised” country you probably know next to nothing about the primate Homo sapiens and how they survive in the wild."

But what is "wild"? Consider:

https://books.google.com/books?id=LXmY3Q8qBngC&pg=PT74&lpg=P...

"Homo heidelbergensis (700,000 to 150,000 years in Europe and 600,000 years in Africa)... were probably the builders of one of the oldest known types of constructed habitations found so far, at a site called Terra Amata in southern France. Several large, oval structures, 7 to 15 meters long and 4 to 6 meters wide, date back 380,000 years."

So it is possible that humans have been living in nice houses for 380,000 years. And who knows what sort of beds homo heidelbergensis slept in? It's possible humans have preferred comfortable beds for a long time. Who knows? We have not (yet) found examples of bedding from that long ago time period.

Conclusion: be wary of anyone who makes assumptions about what constitutes "wild" in the modern context.

Yup, although be careful not to engage too heavily with this argument. “What did our predecessors do before we had houses and made these kinds of beds?” is an interesting question and it’s important to not get hung up on wording that isn’t the focus of the question.

At some point before we started controlling our environments to whatever level interests a scientist, our ancestors lived different lives, ate, slept, socialized, whatever… in much different ways. There might be things to learn from that. That’s not to say that what some hominid was doing a million years ago was the right thing to do, but being curious and having answers is valuable.

And, what may be implied in your statement, the things we do today may not be right either. Like how one year studies say eggs are bad for you and the next they say they are good. I think there's a lot of settled science that is less settled than we think, or is at least misapplied/misinterpreted.

"right" is a value judgement that just doesn't have a place in choices as complex as how a person should live and fulfill basic necessities. There just isn't one way that's the only way to do things, there's no optimum life, no strict ordering of "this > that" and thinking of things along the lines of "good for you vs. bad for you" is the wrong metaphor.

Yet that's exactly what many studies set out to do - influence/force people through medical counseling, policy, or law.

I mean, we're "living in the wild" now aren't we? We are living in our natural habitats, we just so happen to heavily modify them.

Only if you mean to make the phrase meaningless. Living somewhere that wasn't our natural habitat would be quite wild, and so we would cover everywhere and everything with the phrase.

There's nothing wild about your house. We have erected a modern civilization over what used to be our natural habitat.

> Only if you mean to make the phrase meaningless.

I don't think it makes the phrase meaningless. Just a different conception of what is natural, and not one that's unprecedented. For example, the ancient greeks considered things like cities to be part of the natural world (because humans are natural, and humans naturally build them).

In such a conception, an unnatural habitat would probably be something like living in isolation (without even close family), which we know has... less than good outcomes in many cases.

Disagree.

"In the wild" infers "in a state of nature". Humans have constructed their own surroundings, no different than a beaver might build a damn or a bird might build a nest.

It's an interesting premise, but I am not at all convinced by this paper -

The author comments "I tried to carry out surveys to collect evidence but they were meaningless, as tribespeople give you the answer they think you want", so this is in no way a scientific or quantified study, just the author's own observations.

The only citation in this paper is for the fact that humans are one of 200 kinds of primates; I really wish there were some actual citations for the really fundamental assumption here that the "forest dwellers and nomads" have fewer musculoskeletal health issues compared to "civilised people" (in the authors words).

Additionally, the photo selection here is kind of uncomfortable - starts with a Kenyan human compared (similar) to a gorilla, and then is mostly photos of the author himself in only his underwear.

It’s easy to do since we just get handed a headline and a nih.gov link that presents the work no different than a study, but you’re evaluating it on different criteria than it was written or published for.

It’s a discursive, exploratory essay published to the BMJ by a working/clinical physiotherapist to share some intuitions they’ve developed from reflecting on personal and clinical experiences.

The journal it was published to has many different forms of work that it shares, clearly indicated in format and heading, selected by their assumed value to other professionals in the field.

The person writing this probably did not believe they established scientific proof of sleep postures, nor would the editors or readers who encountered the article in its original form have thought such a claim was being made. It just would have been an interesting perspective to think about, maybe, before moving on to another article in the journal.

22 years later, it’s interesting how we’ve gotten used to ignoring context and judging everything by one criteria. Some of that’s probably due to efforts to normalize information as “data” with a predetermined schema so that it fits nicely in a database and only needs one stylesheet.

It’s kind of a shame, though, because it makes it a lot harder to appreciate things as they are, because we get so caught up in seeing them as a poor version of something else.

This is good context, thank you.

I do find the ideas interesting, but ultimately frustrating because of no grounding in anything that I feel like I can trust - e.g. is it actually true that "non civilised" groups have fewer back problems?

But in a context where this author is known and trusted, or that is explicitly open to hearing observations based on experience without requiring any kind of citations or scientific studies, then I can see the value - I wish that was communicable here somehow, rather than looking like a regular peer-reviewed journal article.

Also, the photos of the author in their underwear is to make it clear to the viewer about the positions being demonstrated.

Also, the backstory of the author was that he was in the army (before he got blind), and spent time with people from Kenya then. Thus, there is likely a focus of a person from Kenya in this photo. Also, it is about finding people who are not the ones in developed countries sleeping on modern era invented beds and beddings.

FWIW, the author of the study is blind (though not born blind): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18027950

One big lesson, is - try a firm bed. Even if it takes some getting used to, the chances are it'll be nice to your bones, 'cause evolution didn't know about soft beds, just hard ish ones. The older I get, the firmer the bed I need seems to get.

Watch out if you sleep and lie down on your sides a lot. I got hip tendinitis from too firm mattress.

Keep in mind there is a broad spectrum of human bodies around. Evolution also didn’t intend for the average male human to weigh almost 200lbs. Softer beds may be a response to joints that have to support a lot more weight.

Dunno who you're thinking of, but 200lb is easily a healthy weight for a male human. If they're over 6' tall, then their either noticably skinny or they're about 200lb. Malnutrition can easily bring the average size and weight down a lot though, so maybe you're thinking of an average weight in that context.

The average American woman weighs 166.2 pounds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As reddit recently pointed out, that's almost exactly as much as the average American man weighed in the early 1960s.

Men, you're not looking too hot in this scenario either. Over the same time period you gained nearly 30 pounds, from 166.3 in the 60s to 195.5 today. Doing the same comparison as above, today's American man weighs almost as much as 1.5 American women from the 1960s. At 195.5 pounds, put five American guys in a room and you've gathered roughly half a ton of manhood. [1]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-...

A condescending article in Esquire ca. late 1930s about Pennsylvania Dutch cooking described the local gentry as weighing eight to the ton. I no longer know where I read this.

I would add the current Americans on the average are not only heavier but taller. I and some of my cousins have sons considerably taller than we are. (I--a boomer--am 6', my son is 6'4"; a cousin is perhaps 5'10" with one son 6'4", and another who at last viewing seemed to be on the way to that height.)

I thought even 160lbs for most men was overweight going by BMI.

No, it's within normal range at average height. And below average for US males under 40 (or any age female).

It's worth noting that the parent said "average male human", and you shifted that bar quite a lot by saying "over 6' tall". In the USA, the average male height is about 5'9". If you're 6'+ you're somewhere in the tallest 15% of all men.

The article is about primitive human and primate sleeping behaviors, and gives examples of tribal people in Kenya and other places.

The average weight for a man in Kenya is ~138 and I don’t imagine primitive humans were nomading around at 200+lbs.

And 6’ >200lbs is overweight imo.

There’s certainly a comparison aspect to this…I’m 6 feet (183cm) tall and 155lbs (71kg). My family in the American midwest comment consistently about how “skinny” I look, but I’ve never had any similar conversations in NYC where I live, or Europe where the other side of my family is from.

My family is from the midwest, so not a new perspective I guess, but I would consider 6'/155 to be very skinny.

I'm 6' myself, and I thought myself quite skinny at 185lbs. It's the weight I'm moving back to now.

At 185lbs, I wear a men's medium shirt, usually.

I do have thick legs. I've always had big calf muscles and thighs, since I was a kid. Maybe that can account for 30lbs, I'm really not sure.

> If they're over 6' tall,

My understanding is that having a significant portion of humans over 6’ tall was a relatively recent phenomenon.

So I agree with the gp post, having humans weight 200 pounds was not common in evolution.

Our culture around food has absolutely normalized being overweight. I'm 6'3. 200 lbs is the BMI cutoff before being considered overweight.

Yeah, I prefer sleeping on the floor now with a thin mattress. Great for the back.

I wish proper advise on posture was part of the school curriculum. Even when exercising in the gym, nobody pays much attention to correcting postures and strengthening posture muscles. Over the years, I've come to realise that without proper posture corrections, most musculoskeletal pain reoccurs. There needs to be more scientific research on Alexander's Technique, Pilate, and ayurvedic massage therapy (that many in India swear by).

Btw: people also invented hammocks (somewhere in South America).

Hammocks are really comfortable, why comparing beds with sleeping on the ground? What's the point?

Maybe to be able to tell something like "primitive people and gorillas know instinctively how to sleep on a hard surface". Really?!

Try by yourself, there is probably not much of a choice, sleeping on the ground is uncomfortable in almost any position but few. Tired enough you will figure out.

I prefer by far sleeping on the ground than in a hammock, I do that in summer (just a yoga mat, or it can be nothing for a short nap, and a t-shirt as pillow), it's fresher, it keeps my spine straight

I think the benefit of hammock is above all to avoid all kind of dangers on the ground

Hammocks are great if you're sleeping on a ship and don't have something gyroscopically stabilized. They change the big and unpredictable swings caused by waves into more predictable swings like a pendulum.

Anecdotal datapoint: after discovering this article a long time ago, I adopted the sleeping posture in figure 2.2 (bring it on, insects) for many years. Mattress topper on the floor-- while traveling, only a folded blanket or my jacket. Loved it and never woke up sore, no matter where I slept. Additionally, this article's quirky presentation always made the habit ripe for sharing with others (add in some play-proselytizing and lambasting the "profit-driven motives of Big Bed").

I recommend at least trying out these postures-- they may be useful to you even if only as a means of securing comfort and rest in situations or environments where accommodations may be limited (camping, crashing at a friend's place, sharing a room with friends/family, roaming the post-apocalypse, etc.)

My first impression was: People who adopt a sleep posture as kids, develop the flexibility to maintain it as an adult. I don't know if I can twist my body into those shapes at my age today.

> When lying on one side you do not even need the arm as a pillow: when the lower shoulder is fully hunched

Hmm what. That doesn’t sound possible.

been sleeping without a pillow since college. my neck problems disappeared immediately when i made the switch. there are so many unexamined habits in our culture. a lot of defaulting to short-term comfort without considering what the long-term consequences might be, too.

Do you lay on your side at all? I find I cannot sleep through the whole night on my back without getting up and walking around.

i can only sleep on my side. you get used to tucking your chin in as is described in the article pretty quickly

Chin tucking is associated with snoring and apnea, as it closes off part of the airway. Try it for yourself, it's much easier to snore when your chin is either tucked or your head is tilted all the way back, but it's harder when your head is simply upright.

I can assure you it is. You roll your shoulder inwards and sleep with your chin resting lightly on it

I just tried this for 5 minutes. Seems like it works well for me.

The most remarkable part, mentioned in the article, is that the mouth/jaw closes naturally. Very interesting because my mouth naturally hinges open when I sleep on my back (or on my side with pillow). Given the many benefits of breathing through your nose (vs mouth-breathing), I am going to give this sleep position a try for a few nights. Each body is a little different and I enjoy n=1 experiments.

You are right. I sleep on the sides but with pillows, and suspect I am a mouth breather too. But if you don't use the pillows, the mouth does naturally remain closed. However, I am still sceptical about this as without the pillow to support the head / neck, I think breathing is bit more laboured. Moreover, in my experience, sleeping on the side puts a lot of pressure on your neck and shoulders and you often wake up with sore muscles in those parts of the body.

> Tribal people do not like lying on the ground in the recovery position while wearing no clothes as the penis dangles in the dust and can get bitten by insects. When the legs are in the reverse recovery position (fig (fig2,2, bottom), the penis lies on the lower thigh and is protected.

Finally my sleep problems are over.

Tiger knee us the best sleep posture. Pillow optional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com