Sleep Privilege: Why Our Obsession with ‘Perfect’ Sleep is Backfiring

The pursuit of a good night’s sleep has become something of an obsession. From wearable trackers and specialized gummies to even, in some cases, covert CCTV monitoring, a growing “sleep hysteria” has taken hold. But this intense focus on sleep is a relatively recent phenomenon. It wasn’t always this way. Just a few decades ago, the prevailing attitude, exemplified by figures like Margaret Thatcher, was that sleep was a luxury to be minimized – the Iron Lady herself reportedly functioned on only four hours of sleep a night. As the BBC reported in 2013, Thatcher’s dedication to perform often meant sacrificing sleep, a practice once considered a badge of honor.

The shift in perspective began gaining momentum with research into the profound impact of sleep deprivation. Landmark studies, like the 1960s experiment with high school student Randy Gardner, demonstrated the detrimental effects of prolonged wakefulness. Gardner, kept awake for 11 days, experienced delusions, irritability, and a significant lack of coordination. More recently, scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the intricate links between sleep and both mental and physical health. Research published in the journal International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, for example, details these connections, fueling the wellness industry’s focus on sleep optimization.

The Rise of “Orthosomnia” and Sleep Privilege

This growing awareness, while positive in many respects, has also given rise to what sleep scientists have termed “orthosomnia” – a fixation on achieving “perfect” sleep. Coined in 2017, orthosomnia describes the anxiety and distress caused by the perceived gap between ideal sleep patterns (often dictated by advice and sleep trackers) and actual sleep experiences. The very act of striving for perfect sleep, ironically, can become a source of sleeplessness.

Professor Roz Shafran, a leading clinical psychologist, observed a troubling trend: individuals already facing sleep disruptions due to circumstances beyond their control – caring for others, chronic illness, shift work – were becoming increasingly distressed, not by the daytime effects of sleep loss, but by the fear of potential long-term consequences like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. This led Shafran and Professor Allison Harvey to introduce the concept of “sleep privilege”, acknowledging that access to adequate sleep is not equally distributed and that advice often fails to account for individual circumstances.

Beyond the Eight-Hour Myth: Individual Needs and the Pitfalls of Tracking

The idea that everyone needs eight hours of sleep is a pervasive myth. As anyone who shares a bed with another person knows, sleep requirements vary considerably. Expert panels concur, noting that sleep length requirements are not fixed, changing both between individuals and throughout life. Attempting to force oneself into an eight-hour sleep schedule when less is sufficient can be counterproductive, akin to overstretching dough – leading to fragmented sleep and nighttime awakenings, as explained by Professor Jason Ellis.

The proliferation of sleep-tracking technology, while intended to be helpful, can also contribute to anxiety. Watches, rings, apps, and even video monitoring systems are now used to quantify sleep, but this constant monitoring can paradoxically disrupt sleep. Individuals may find themselves lying in bed, obsessively checking data and willing themselves to achieve specific sleep metrics, like “core sleep,” a term unfamiliar to many sleep scientists.

The Dark Side of Sleep Monitoring: Paranoia and Inaccuracy

The use of sleep monitoring technology extends beyond the home. A recent BBC article highlighted concerns about the use of video monitoring in mental health wards, where it was reportedly linked to increased paranoia and illness among patients. The accuracy of many sleep-tracking devices is questionable, potentially causing unnecessary worry over inaccurate data.

Effective Support and the Return to “Natural Sleep”

It’s significant to remember that genuine sleep problems are real and deserve attention. Digital therapeutics like Sleepio, co-founded by Professor Colin Espie, offer evidence-based treatment for insomnia through cognitive behavioral therapy delivered via a smartphone app. Sleepio is the first of its kind to be recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and is currently available on the NHS in Scotland, with plans for wider rollout in England. Your GP can also recommend other effective treatments.

Yet, for those without serious sleep challenges, a return to a more intuitive approach – peeling away the layers of advice and tracking – may be beneficial. Perhaps embracing “natural sleep” – allowing the body to regulate its own sleep patterns without excessive intervention – could be the next wellness trend. This involves recognizing individual needs, minimizing anxiety about sleep, and trusting the body’s innate ability to rest and recover.

Looking Ahead: Re-evaluating the Narrative

The current emphasis on sleep, while stemming from valid scientific concerns, has arguably swung too far in the direction of anxiety and control. Future discussions need to prioritize a more nuanced understanding of sleep, acknowledging individual differences, the impact of external factors, and the potential harms of excessive monitoring. Continued research into the long-term effects of sleep disruption is crucial, but it must be communicated responsibly, avoiding sensationalism and focusing on evidence-based guidance. A healthy relationship with sleep involves finding a balance between awareness and acceptance, recognizing that perfect sleep is not only unattainable but also potentially counterproductive.