There's no point losing sleep over losing sleep

They convene here most nights, uninvited but always arriving with impeccable punctuality. Regrets from 20 years ago assume their usual place at the end of the bed. Past humiliations shuffle awkwardly near the window.

Concerns about looming deadlines squeeze in gently beside me, careful not to wake my wife. In moments of rare silence the spectre of unpaid bills paces the hallway like an impatient debt collector.

Sleep, that lifelong disloyal companion, has fled the room.

It's been like this for decades. The first act - falling asleep - happens quickly. But some time in the early hours - always the early hours - intermission arrives. The brain decides the past requires another performance review before pondering present and future catastrophes. Finally, an hour or two later, sleep's second act thankfully arrives.

Sleep disorder? Until recently I thought the same. Isn't the entire modern world, convulsed by nighttime anxieties, experiencing a catastrophic sleep deprivation epidemic?

It's certainly what wellness influencers and that multibillion-dollar sleep industry preach while peddling their drugs, magnesium herbal remedies, high-tech mattresses, lavender-infused pillows, ambient lighting and sleep clinics.

But new research is suggesting that the uninterrupted eight-hour slab of slumber we're supposed to strive for is largely a myth. Our dozing patterns, it turns out, are as different as our personalities.

For much of human history my tendency to wake in the middle of the night was standard. Historians say our ancestors often snoozed in two distinct shifts. The first sleep began soon after dark. Several hours later people woke, read if they could, talked, lit candles and shuffled about before settling into what literature and diaries of the time describe as "the second sleep".

We romanticise life before the Industrial Revolution ushered in its world of electric light to confuse our body clocks and suppress the release of melatonin, the hormone that prepares the body for sleep. But conditions centuries ago were just as chaotic. People slept in crowded beds, were beset by filth and burdened by hungry bellies. Thin walls could not muffle the screams and sighs of nightlife or the bellowing of nightwatchmen announcing each hour's passing.

Early hunter-gatherer societies had an even tougher time, managing between five and seven hours a night, barely different to what most of us experience now.

So if you're losing sleep over losing sleep, some good news: a recent meta-analysis by London researchers found no evidence of a global sleep deprivation epidemic. While our sleep patterns are changing because of shift work, longer commuting hours and the constant pressures of modern life, we're not that different from our ancestors.

Science is discovering that sleep depends on a chaotic orchestra of circadian rhythms, body temperature, hormones and genetics that is rarely in tune. Some of us are night owls, others morning roosters. A tiny minority - 1 per cent - carry a genetic variant allowing them to function on four hours or less a night.

An insufferable former colleague in the radio business often boasted about his ability to thrive on the bare minimum of slumber. "Sleeping makes you tired," he'd lecture his staff. He might have been one of those 1 percenters. But his judgement and personality always betrayed his exhaustion.

I anguished for years over my inability to sleep for long stretches. But the older I've grown, the more accepting I've become of those bedroom ghosts who gather in those early hours, whispering their warnings about the future and dwelling on the past.

I've learned not to take them seriously. Humouring them, sipping a little water and reading a few pages of a book usually quietens their torments. Bored, they eventually vanish to ply their trade elsewhere. A second sleep of several more hours means I usually wake rested and none the worse for wear.

Of course, you can improve your sleep by avoiding alcohol, heavy meals and the blue light of the smartphone. But it appears the secret to a good night's slumber is to ignore modern expectations about sleep and accept the rules of your body clock.

Happy to discuss further. I'll be free at 1.47am tomorrow.

HAVE YOUR SAY: What methods do you employ to get a better night's sleep? Are you an insomniac or a great sleeper? Are you one of the one percenters who only need four hours or less each night? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au

SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

- Software giant Atlassian is shedding 1600 jobs across its global workforce, to "rebalance" the company in the era of AI.

- Australia's data centre boom risks widespread blackouts and cascading grid failures without tougher connection standards, the energy market rule maker has warned.

- Australia wants an expanded fleet of Bluebottle sea drones to signal the same message to the nation's opponents that its jellyfish namesake sends to swimmers: get out of the ocean.

THEY SAID IT: "Never under any circumstances take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night." - Dave Barry

YOU SAID IT: It looks like a war. It sounds like a war. Yet our political leaders avoid the word, preferring the much softer "conflict". (That said, and to be fair, in Question Time yesterday, the PM and Energy Minister Chris Bowen finally used the W word.)

We'll start with the three Ians.

Ian G. writes: "It was amusing to see members of US Congress twisting themselves in knots trying to say this wasn't a war. Do they see the irony of sounding like Putin with his 'special military operation'? Trump seems happy to call it a war, which according to him he's already won. When he calls it off because the US and global economy is suffering too much, he'll claim the peace prize for ending it. And just because a couple of Aussie sailors were getting work experience on the boat that sunk an Iranian ship doesn't mean that Australia is also at war. Nor does sending a surveillance aircraft to help defend the Gulf states. They are being attacked, but does that mean they are at war? They don't seem to be fighting back. It's all a bit murky, but that's war for you."

"The first casualty of war is truth, which is why a war becomes a conflict, a special military operation or a pre-emptive strike," writes Ian G. "From there it's all downhill."

Ian W. writes: "Albanese and Wong keep telling us that it is up to the US and Israel to decide on the legality of their 'conflict' with Iran. If I rob a bank, is it up to me to determine whether my activity is legal or not?"

"A rose is just as sweet by any other name," writes Arthur. "War is just as horrible by any other name."

Vena writes: "Reconnaissance plane: OK. Missiles: no, unless used to protect that particular craft. If Australian missiles are going to drop on Iran then we're at war."

"Firstly hats off to John Hanscombe and The Echidna," writes Adrian. "It's the only thing each morning that reminds us we are still alive and that brings a smile to our faces. Albanese, Wong et al can call it what they like but 'conflict' it isn't. It's a war. Anything that has munitions flying down range at pre-designated targets is a war. Anything that involves the military and the loss of life and the destruction of human life and infrastructure is a war. These limp wrists can obfuscate and mask it all in polite political speak. It's still a war. The decision to deploy assets human and mechanical was made to benefit whom? Not Australia, not the UAE but the good ol' boys from the US of A."

Anita writes: "Whatever it is, I'm dismayed by the alacrity with which the ALP has jumped on board. They're are going to lose this voter (me, Cook electorate), at the next federal election. This move is just symbolic as the Cook electorate is a hotbed of conservatism, but it may send a message. With great regret I'll be giving the Greens my vote."

"An ANU professor writes that the UAE in defending itself, yes against an illegal war of Trump and Netanyahu idiocy, is not an illegal act. Australia's deployment in their aid is not illegal," writes Brenda. "I doubt this government, notwithstanding your regular attempts to foment outrage about it, has any interest in prolonging Australia's involvement. There are plenty within the parliamentary Labor party and rank and file members who are uneasy about this. I await tomorrow's deluge of criticism of the government and the PM. These are fraught times with many challenges on many fronts. Add to that the mountain of 'rage bait', getting clicks by headlines aimed to rear people up. The Echidna makes its contribution to that."