Wow this study and the reporting is a massive trainwreck from start to finish NAPS CAN'T SAVE YOUR LIFE UGHpic.twitter.com/PAFWdJLDvF
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Basically, the researchers found that people who napped 1-2 times a week had the lowest risk of cardiovascular events (heart disease), while those who napped 6+ times a week had the highestpic.twitter.com/B39pabnkZn
However, after correcting for some fairly simple confounding variables, the relationship disappeared for the 6+ nappers, although the reduced risk for 1-2 per week nappers remained significantpic.twitter.com/oLYCbQzN8w
However, something that wasn't reported on in the media is that the protective effect of 1-2 naps a week ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED when you controlled for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)pic.twitter.com/UFxsDf4Z9H
In other words NAPS DIDN'T HAVE MUCH OF AN EFFECT AT ALL ONCE YOU CONTROLLED FOR OSA This was, surprisingly, relegated to a single sentence in the results and a somewhat incomplete explanation in the limitations section of the paperpic.twitter.com/WjbU5nFOdV
It's plausible that the relationship was attenuated because of the reduced sample size It's also plausible that it was attenuated because OSA causes people to nap and it's an example of classic confounding/reverse causality
On top of this, there was ENORMOUS potential for residual confounding in this study For one thing, even the controls for confounding were based on some pretty simple variables (probably due to the sample itself)pic.twitter.com/gHPw2E6zZM
If nothing else, the fact that there were no controls for alcohol and drug use, which might impact both napping and CVD risk, makes the results quite challenging to interpretpic.twitter.com/1UekGHmQ2C
The authors acknowledged most of this in their limitations, because it's all fairly basic epidemiological stuff and they're clever scientistspic.twitter.com/IhZ0CJvxTR
But when you get to the press release, somehow much of the message that this potentially might not have anything to do with naps at all is lostpic.twitter.com/UtJ7RPNzyG
And then the headlines - especially the totally ridiculous "a nap can save your life" - are wildly off base
TL:DR - Swiss people who nap a little might be slightly healthier than those who don't nap at all - Might be more to do with age and OSA than naps themselves - No good reason to believe that naps are healthy
Also, forgot to mention, the relative risk decrease was large (50%!) but the absolute risk decrease for napping was more like 3% which is a bit less impressive
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.