I am also open to any series of articles/podcast or any scientific author to follow over a long time to learn about human sleep. I understand that not everything may apply to me, but still, learning is a good thing.
In a case like yours (difficulty sleeping) that might actually be fine, to be honest. A lot of people find relief from simply feeling like they understand a subject, rather than from having absolute accuracy of information. The confidence begets a feeling of control, which diminishes anxiety, which indirectly leads to better sleep.
These podcasts and materials often follow a pattern of suggesting some specific protocol based on loose interpretations of some underpowered study. The actual power of these supplements on routines is almost always much lower than the host says (Huberman is one of the worst at this) but the confidence with which the protocol is prescribed is often enough to convince people that it will work. The protocols and supplements turn into rituals and routines, which are cues for sleep, indirectly establishing a healthier sleep cycle with cues for relaxation.
On the other hand, some people get more anxious after consuming this material because they feel like not sleeping well is killing them, which creates more anxiety, which then worsens sleep.
I’ll let you decide which category you’re in.
For actual material on the subject: Sleep science and research isn’t as much about practical lifestyle tips as you might expect. The material that would be more helpful, practically speaking, is to pursue therapy-like modalities and relaxation techniques. You will find much more material about practically improving sleep from the therapy angle than you will from reading deep science on sleep architecture.
While I have long agreed with this sentiment, I'd like to gently push back against the idea that "science" is itself coherent, reliable, monolithic, or able to be digested by a single human at all. I suspect what you're actually comparing to is in-depth reading of published papers from which you draw your own conclusions—reliable or not—drawn arbitrarily from a pool where there's basically zero way to actually verify the quality of the papers you're reading. In this light I don't think it's a bad thing that people are given a glimpse of scientific understanding through pop-literature because the vast majority of people—even those that read papers—grossly overestimate the certainty of knowledge that they have not specifically specialized in.
This is a long-winded way of saying basically nobody interacts with "science" directly. It all comes down to trust, and I strongly suspect that the trust in a give pop-literature writer isn't that much worse-placed than the average person writing the academic papers in the first place—outside the topic of the paper, of course. It's incredibly difficult to aggregate knowledge without serious evidence about how trustworthy the publishers and writers are, and sadly credentials and brand prestige tend to be piss-poor evidence.
It is when you're doing "Huberman Math" https://x.com/bcrypt/status/1788406218937229780
This isn't a "glimpse into science", it's mostly the techbro version of Oprah trying to sell people vitamin supplements.
I read that before I got into working in the neurotech/sleeptech space.
The Cambridge textbook The Neuroscience of Sleep and Dreams[1] I found surprisingly approachable. I've long had an interest in neuroscience, so it wasn't a completely new subject to me, but it wasn't a bad read.
I'm a life-long insomniac, you didn't go into the details of your sleep problems, and I initially read Why We Sleep because I was trying to understand sleep and fix my own problem. Unfortunately, I it's still all the same CBT-I stuff, sleep hygiene, etc etc.
We're not working in insomnia, I haven't found anything in the peer-reviewed literature which is convincing that anyone is near a solution in this space.
[1](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/neuroscience-of-sleep-a...)
Is that an overly cynical perspective?
We've been building a consumer level sleep eeg headband, and are looking forward to learning more about brain function with huge volumes of sleep eeg data. Just looking at sleep stages isn't enough.
Of course, our goal isn't to get people to sleep with an eeg device, but we can't stimulate deep sleep without directly monitoring brain activity. We're https://affectablesleep.com
It's less catastrophizing about bad sleep than Why We Sleep, has a good sense of humor, lots of great information about Insomnia and other problems. Unlike "Why We Sleep", Dr. Winter is a practicing sleep doctor so has perhaps more practical perspective.
https://www.amazon.com/Sleep-Solution-Why-Your-Broken/dp/039...
If it's Insomnia, consider a cognitive behavioral therapist. If it's something else, look for the right expert. It can be also an external condition (e.g., do you live close to railways, airports, chemical plants?), diet and lifestyle, genetic factors etc... Without knowing what is your main sleep complaint is difficult to advice you.
Rest and Activity go hand-in-hand.
I had sleep issues for 10+ years. I couldn't fall asleep most nights, would wake up tired, couldn't function without severe caffeine, which would lose efficacy over time and cause even more sleep issues and mind-bending headaches.
Sleep issues were just a symptom. It was my life (Activity) that needed fixing.
Look to your life -- if you fix things there, you'll fix your sleep.
If you want to talk further, feel free to reach out on email.
If you have a ton of sleep problems, you should probably catalog them, and try seeing a somnologist or getting an in-lab sleep study.
[1](https://www.amazon.com/Life-Saving-Sleep-Horizons-Treatment/...)
Seriously, make yourself a guinea pig, experiment and have fun. All whilst making note of how things are affecting your sleep.
Here are some starter experiments:
-no tech within 1 hour of bedtime
-do household chores or go for a walk/run a few hours before sleeping
My last tip for all of this is to have self-compassion, a majority of things won't work but that's the methodologies problem not yours. Decide if you want to tweak it or move on.
Good luck and best wishes.
So understand the limitations of observational epidemiology studies. Correlations are observed between some outcome of interest (i.e. cancer and death) and a variable or variables these may or may not be impacted by (i.e. duration, quality, and regularity of sleep). If you observe a positive correlation, well, what causes it? Maybe poor sleep gives you cancer. Maybe cancer gives you poor sleep. Maybe a life full of terrible stress gives you both poor sleep and cancer. The researchers can't possibly know. This type of research is done to find interesting correlations that can then be investigated further by conducting interventional studies.
This is what the public doesn't seem to understand. Observational studies in nutrition and exercise science and what not are always being posted to Hacker News, but these are not really meant for public consumption. They're meant to suggest avenues of further research by other scientists. You see the same thing with various classifications by standards bodies, for instance, the IARC carcinogen thing. They classify compounds as possibly carcinogenic not to warn people off of using them, but to suggest to other researchers what they should bother and not bother looking into.
Unfortunately, as I stated in the first paragraph, it is hard to go further with sleep science. The problem with the book "Why We Sleep," caveating here that I haven't read it personally, is I'm pretty sure it goes beyond what the evidence warrants in order to state with far too much certainty that losing sleep causes a whole lot of bad outcomes when we do not know that to be true. My engagement with this largely goes back to the earlier Hacker News threads about this book and the Barbell Medicine and Stronger by Science podcasts going into fairly detailed debunkings of it and breakdowns of what we really know about sleep deprivation and poor sleep.
Treating insomnia is a different matter. People with insomnia will definitel consent to interventions, including long-term interventions. Whether or not any evidence exists for various interventions other than pharmaceutical sleep aids, I'm not all that aware of. Out of all the over the counter supplements people recommend, I'm pretty sure melatonin is the only one known to work, but it has drawbacks in that it tends to leave you drowsy when you wake and some people report wild and disturbing dreams. I'm sure it's worth trying, though.
There is plenty of pop sleep hygiene advice out there. I have no idea what sort of evidence other than anecdote it really has behind it, either, but it's also harmless to try. The standard keep your room cool, remove all lights, commit to a regular schedule, be in bed 30 minutes before you plan to sleep, all that that I'm sure you've heard before. I know my wife is trying a bunch. I'm not sure how well it's working. I used to be an insomniac when I was a kid. Now I'm not. I didn't really do anything. That seems to be common as well, or at least a lot of podcast hosts reported the same thing. They were insomniacs. Now they're not.
Granted, I run 60 miles a week, lift four days a week, and rock climb three days a week. I'm sure a lot of people will just say that much exercise is going to make you tired. I do believe evidence suggests that, but I was just as active as a kid.
Or, this book by this scientist on sleep: https://shepherd.com/best-books/the-science-of-dreams
It is heavily about dreams but touches on so much more.
From 2017 "Israeli firm 2breathe has developed a smart sensor and complementary app to help those who have difficulty nodding off" https://geeknewscentral.com/?s=2breathe
