Evolutionary Insights by Anthropology.net
In a 2025 study published in PNAS, researchers led by Christine Ou and Steven Heine asked roughly 250 people in each of 20 countries, spanning six continents, how long they’d slept the night before. France came out on top at 7 hours and 52 minutes. Japan came in last at 6 hours and 18 minutes. The gap between them, an hour and thirty-four minutes, is roughly the difference between a full sleep cycle. If sleep science worked the way most public health messaging implies it does, that gap should show up in the data as a gap in wellbeing. Japan should look, on paper, like a nation quietly grinding itself down. It doesn’t. Diabetes rates, heart disease, obesity, life expectancy: none of it tracks with how long a country sleeps. In a separate analysis of 353 national sleep averages pulled from 14 different datasets covering 71 countries, the team found no relationship between a country’s average sleep duration and its rates of heart disease, diabetes, or life expectancy. Stranger still, countries where people slept longer had higher obesity rates, the opposite of the pattern researchers have repeatedly found when they study individuals within a single country. This is the kind of result that should make you sit up. Not because it’s surprising in isolation. Findings about sleep and individuals are everywhere, and so are claims that whichever number a press release happens to favor is the one that will fix your life. What’s surprising is what happens when you zoom out from individuals to populations. The relationship between sleep and health doesn’t vanish at the national level. It gets reorganized. What the Curve Actually Looks Like Inside any given country, the study replicates the familiar shape: a curve, not a line. Sleep too little, your health composite score (built from depression, chronic conditions, subjective health, and overall wellbeing) drops. Sleep too much, it drops again. There’s a sweet spot in the middle, and it’s a real, statistically robust feature of the data within every single country in the sample. But the position of that sweet spot moves. The researchers found a turning point, the amount of sleep associated with peak health, for each of the 20 countries individually, and those turning points differed significantly from one another. The optimal number isn’t one number. It’s twenty numbers, one per culture, and they don’t converge. What did converge, across every country studied, was something else entirely: the gap between how much people actually slept and where their personal curve peaked. In every country, average sleep duration fell short of the turning point. Everyone, everywhere, is sleeping somewhat less than their own culture’s apparent optimum. The shortfall is universal. The optimum is not. There’s a second result buried in here that’s arguably more interesting than the headline finding, and it has nothing to do with hours. The researchers asked each participant not just how long they’d slept, but what they believed their cultureconsidered an ideal amount of sleep. Then they measured the gap between a person’s actual sleep and their own estimate of that cultural ideal. People whose sleep was closer to what they believed their culture expected, regardless of whether that was six hours or eight, reported better health. The effect held up even after controlling for the raw number of hours slept. In other words: it’s not just that six hours works for some places and eight works for others. It’s that matching the local norm, whatever that norm happens to be, carries its own independent health signal. The researchers floated a few explanations. Maybe people feel subjectively healthier when their habits feel normal. Maybe there’s friction, low-grade and cumulative, in being out of step with everyone around you (worrying about missing the early train, structuring your evening around a schedule nobody else keeps). Maybe it’s something more biological: people whose sleep architecture doesn’t fit their environment may be, for reasons unrelated to the hours themselves, less healthy to begin with, and the correlation runs the other direction. The data can’t distinguish between these, and the authors are upfront that it’s correlational throughout. But the fact that “fit” predicts health independently of “amount” is the kind of finding that quietly reframes the whole question. The View From Three Million Years Back None of this happens in a vacuum, obviously, and one of the more useful frames for thinking about why a six-hour average and an eight-hour average can both sit at the top of their respective curves comes from outside the PNAS paper entirely. David Samson, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Toronto, has spent years studying sleep across the primate order, lemurs, orangutans, chimpanzees, and eventually humans themselves, including extended fieldwork living alongside the Hadza in Tanzania and the BaYaka in the Republic of the Congo. His phylogenetic models, built from sleep data across more than 30 primate species and controlling for body size, brain size, social structure, and terrestriality, generate a prediction for how much Homo sapiens “should” sleep given our biology: about 11.5 hours per 24-hour period. We sleep, on average, about seven. That’s not a small discrepancy. Owl monkeys sleep up to 17 hours. Tarsiers manage 15. Lemurs sit around 13 to 14. Great apes, our closest relatives, average somewhere between 9.5 and 10. Humans are the outlier of the entire order, the primates who sleep the least, by a wide margin, relative to what their biology would predict. Samson’s argument, laid out in his book The Sleepless Ape [https://amzn.to/4eKMywo], is that this isn’t a deficit. It’s the result of a real evolutionary shift, one he dates to roughly 1.8 million years ago, when Homo erectus began building shelters. Once you have a controlled sleeping environment, natural selection has room to start trimming non-REM sleep, gradually, over hundreds of thousands of years. At the same time, the advent of cooking with fire collapsed the daily chewing budget. Chimpanzees spend five to six hours a day chewing raw food. Gorillas spend up to eleven. Cooked food cut that down to roughly an hour for humans. Between the sleep reduction and the chewing reduction, Samson estimates our ancestors freed up something on the order of four extra hours a day, time that could go toward toolmaking, social bonding, teaching, and the kind of cumulative culture that no other primate manages at scale. The “human sleep paradox” is that we’re the short-sleeping primate who also lives the longest and thinks the hardest. Samson’s framing is that the short sleep isn’t despite our cognitive advantages. It’s bound up with how we got them. Where the Stories Meet, and Where They Don’t Here’s where it gets genuinely interesting, because the two pictures, the PNAS cross-cultural data and Samson’s evolutionary one, line up in one place and pull apart in another. They agree on the headline: humans sleep less than the textbooks have generally assumed they should, and it’s not a crisis. The widespread narrative of a modern “sleep deprivation epidemic,” driven by phones and stress and artificial light, gets undercut from two completely independent directions. The PNAS data shows no health penalty for nations that sleep less. And Samson’s fieldwork found something that should be more alarming to that narrative than it usually gets credit for: small-scale societies like the Hadza and the BaYaka sleep less than industrialized populations, not more, averaging around 6.4 hours, with sleep efficiency around 70%, well below the 85% the National Sleep Foundation considers high quality. If anyone should be sleeping “naturally,” free of screens and shift work and 11pm emails, it’s hunter-gatherers. And they’re sleeping worse, by the conventional metrics, than people in Tokyo or Toronto. So why aren’t they falling apart? Samson’s answer points toward circadian alignment rather than duration: groups like the Himba, who he describes as averaging around four and a half hours of sleep a night, show solid cardiovascular and mental health markers, which he attributes to their internal biological clocks being tightly synchronized with their actual environment, light, temperature, activity, in a way that industrialized sleepers, insulated by climate control and artificial lighting, generally are not. This is where the PNAS finding about “cultural fit” starts to look less like a soft psychological add-on and more like it might be pointing at the same underlying mechanism from a completely different angle. The PNAS researchers measured fit to a perceived social norm, what your culture expects. Samson’s framework is about fit to a physical environment, what your biology expects. These aren’t the same thing, and the paper doesn’t make this connection, doesn’t even gesture at Samson’s work at all. But it’s hard not to wonder whether “matching your culture’s sleep norm” and “matching your environment’s light and temperature cycle” are, in many traditional societies, simply the same variable measured twice. The social schedule and the solar schedule used to be the same schedule. In a lot of the modern world, they’ve come apart, and you’re free to match one without the other. Where the two pictures genuinely diverge is on what counts as the unit of explanation. Samson’s framework is a species-level story: humans, as a species, evolved to need less sleep than the primate baseline would predict, full stop, and the explanation is fire and shelter and a few hundred thousand years of selection pressure. The PNAS data doesn’t dispute that humans sleep less than other primates, nobody’s claiming we should be at 11 hours, but it insists that even within the human range, “how much” isn’t settled by species-level biology alone. The turning points for the health curve differ by a measurable, statistically significant amount across 20 countries that share the same evolutionary history. Whatever Samson’s 1.8-million-year story explains, it doesn’t explain why Japan’s optimum and France’s optimum land somewhere different. That gap is being filled by something that operates on a much faster timescale than natural selection, something closer to culture, climate, light exposure, work schedules, the things that differ between Tokyo and Paris but not between Homo sapiens in Tokyo and Homo sapiens anywhere else. Latitude turns out to be one of the few variables that predicts sleep duration with any consistency across both studies, longer sleep further from the equator, which the PNAS authors note replicates earlier work. But latitude alone doesn’t explain the turning points, and it doesn’t explain why “fit to your culture’s expectation” carries an independent health signal on top of the raw hours. There’s a gap here, between what the species-level evolutionary story explains and what the population-level cultural story describes, and as far as either piece of work goes, nobody’s filled it yet. What both perspectives share, in the end, is a quiet correction to a piece of received wisdom: that there’s a number, and the number is the same for everyone, and falling short of it is a failure of modern life. The PNAS data says the number depends on where you live and what your neighbors expect. Samson’s evolutionary framing says the number depends on what your species did with the time it freed up by needing less of it in the first place. Neither one says seven hours is wrong. They just disagree, interestingly, about what “right” would even mean. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.anthropology.net/subscribe [https://www.anthropology.net/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]
285 episodios
Comentarios
0Sé la primera persona en comentar
¡Regístrate ahora y únete a la comunidad de Evolutionary Insights by Anthropology.net!