Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Truth Seekers: Where Data Meets Reality
Tired of sensational headlines and conflicting health advice? Join Alex Barrett and Bill Morrison as they cut through the noise to uncover what scientific research actually says about the claims flooding your social media feed.
Each week, Alex and Bill tackle a different health, nutrition, or wellness claim that everyone's talking about. From "blue light ruins your sleep" to "seed oils are toxic," they dig into the actual studies, examine the methodologies, and translate the data into plain English.
No agenda. No sponsors to please. No credentials to fake. Just two people committed to finding out what's really true by going straight to the source—the research itself.
Perfect for anyone who's skeptical of influencer health advice but doesn't have time to read every scientific study themselves. New episodes drop regularly, delivering clarity in a world full of clickbait.
Question everything. Verify with data. Find the truth.
Disclaimer: Truth Seekers provides educational content based on published research. Nothing in this podcast should be considered medical, financial, or professional advice. Always consult qualified professionals for decisions affecting your health and wellbeing.
**The Orthosomnia Trap: How Your Sleep Tracker Might Be Giving You Insomnia**
Alex: There's a woman — a 27-year-old — who went to a sleep clinic convinced she wasn't sleeping. Not sleeping well, not sleeping deeply. Not sleeping at all. And the lab ran a full overnight test and said, "Actually, you're sleeping fine." And she did not believe them. Because her Fitbit said otherwise.
Bill: And by the time she got to that sleep clinic, her anxiety about the sleep scores had gotten so bad that she genuinely was starting to develop insomnia. The tracker convinced her she had a problem, and the anxiety about the problem created the actual problem.
Alex: So the device designed to help her sleep... gave her a sleep disorder.
Bill: There is a clinical term for this now. Researchers call it "orthosomnia." And it is real, it is documented, and it is genuinely fascinating in the most unsettling way.
Alex: Right. Okay. So here's where we are — hundreds of millions of people worldwide are wearing sleep trackers. Oura Rings, Apple Watches, Fitbits. Checking their deep sleep scores every morning like it's a report card. And what the headlines have been screaming lately is that these devices significantly misclassify your sleep stages and can't actually tell you what's happening inside your own head at night.
Bill: And I want to dig into those headlines, because there's something real there, but there's also something quite a bit more nuanced. I went through the actual peer-reviewed studies on this, and the answer is not "trackers are useless frauds." It's more uncomfortable than that.
Alex: It's always more uncomfortable than that. That's sort of our whole thing, isn't it.
Bill: So the study driving most of these headlines came out of Harvard — Brigham and Women's Hospital — published in the journal Sensors in late 2024. They took 35 healthy adults, brought them into a sleep lab for one night, and compared three consumer devices against the clinical gold standard.
Alex: Which is polysomnography. PSG.
Bill: Right. And that's where they wire up your head and actually measure your brain waves. EEG. And — hang on, this is actually the part I find most interesting about the whole setup, because before you even get to the accuracy numbers, you have to understand what these wearables are actually doing. They have no idea what your brain is doing. None. No brain waves, no EEG. Just an accelerometer and a sensor that shines light through your wrist to measure your pulse.
Alex: Hmm.
Bill: That's the fundamental limitation. That's the physics. So everything downstream — all the sleep stage classifications, the deep sleep percentages — it's all an educated guess built on incomplete information.
Alex: Right.
Bill: So they tested three devices — Oura Ring Gen 3, Fitbit Sense 2, Apple Watch Series 8. And I want to separate two things because the media blurred them completely. First: sleep versus wake detection. Are you asleep or are you awake? All three devices nailed this. Ninety-one to ninety-three percent accuracy.
Alex: Okay.
Bill: Genuinely impressive. But that's not what people are buying a two-hundred-pound ring to measure. The thing people care about — the thing being marketed — is the sleep stages. Deep sleep, REM sleep, light sleep. And that's where it gets messy. So researchers use something called an ICC — an intraclass correlation coefficient — to measure how well the device's nightly estimate matches what the lab actually found.
Alex: Right, okay.
Bill: A score above 0.75 is considered good. Below 0.5 is poor. For deep sleep — Oura got 0.32. Fitbit got 0.36. Apple Watch got 0.13. For REM sleep, similar story — everything ranging from 0.13 to 0.37.
Alex: Across all three devices.
Bill: All three. Poor to very poor. Every single one.
Alex: So when your tracker tells you "you got 45 minutes of deep sleep last night" —
Bill: That number is not reliable. It might be close. It might be quite far off. On any given night, you genuinely cannot tell which.
Alex: And it's specifically worse for Apple Watch, right? There was an actual minutes figure that you flagged and I remember thinking —
Bill: Yeah, the Apple Watch underestimated deep sleep by an average of 43 minutes compared to what the lab measured.
Alex: Forty-three minutes.
Bill: Forty-three minutes. So if the lab says you got an hour of deep sleep, your Apple Watch might be telling you you got 17 minutes. You wake up, you see 17 minutes, you think you're —
Alex: Sleep-deprived.
Bill: And then you start catastrophizing. And then you get anxious. And then —
Alex: Hello, orthosomnia.
Bill: That's the trap.
Alex: Hang on, actually — this reminds me of that insomnia-dementia episode we did. There was all this research about insomnia being linked to dementia risk, and the thing that struck us was that the studies hadn't even used proper sleep measurements. No PSG, no actigraphy. Just self-reported questionnaires and medical records.
Bill: Right. Which, when you think about it, makes this almost ironic. We've got people in this episode refusing to trust gold-standard lab measurements because their tracker says something different.
Alex: The one time someone actually runs the proper test —
Bill: And it gets ignored. Yeah.
Alex: Okay — so Kelly Glazer Baron. She's the clinical psychologist who first documented orthosomnia, back in 2017. What did she actually find?
Bill: She put it really well. She said sleep is a passive biological process — it's not a skill you can perfect. The moment you start grading it, trying to optimize it, stressing over the score — you introduce exactly the kind of bedtime anxiety that destroys sleep. And the case studies in her research were... they genuinely got to me, which I wasn't expecting. Because I came into this thinking about it as a measurement accuracy problem. A stats problem. And Alex, you actually pulled me up on this when we were prepping.
Alex: I mean, it's people's lives, isn't it. One person talked their GP into prescribing an antipsychotic — a significant antipsychotic — based on tracker data that turned out to be wrong. Another person was turning down social events in the evening because they were trying to protect their sleep score.
Bill: And I'd initially sort of filed those as edge cases. Outliers. But then the survey data came in and it shifted things for me — around 18% of sleep app users say the apps make them more worried about their sleep, not less.
Alex: That's not an edge case.
Bill: No. And for someone who already has anxiety or existing insomnia, the research suggests the tracker can actively make things worse. Which — I'd been thinking about this as a data quality issue and you kept saying, "but what about the person on the other end of that number?" And you were right.
Alex: I mean, I used to cover health tech for a while — this came up constantly. The gap between what a device measures and what a user hears. Those are almost always two completely different conversations. Anyway —
Bill: So I want to flag something, because I think this is where the conversation gets genuinely complicated. There's a detail buried in this study that almost nobody in the media coverage picked up.
Alex: Go on.
Bill: The lead author — Rebecca Robbins at Harvard — is listed as a member of the Oura Ring Medical Advisory Board. And the study was funded by Oura Ring Inc.
Alex: Sorry — the study that generated headlines saying "all sleep trackers are inaccurate" was paid for by one of the trackers being tested?
Bill: And that tracker — Oura — performed best in the study. Across almost every metric.
Alex: That's... quite a thing to bury in the footnotes.
Bill: It is. And here's where I actually want to push back on myself a little, because my first instinct when I saw that was — okay, the methodology looks solid, the conflict of interest is disclosed, move on. But I think that's maybe the data scientist in me defaulting to "the numbers are clean, so we're fine."
Alex: Right, but I don't think we can just wave it away. And this is where I'll actually disagree with you a bit. Because it's not just about whether the findings are fabricated. It's about what questions got asked in the first place. One night, in a lab, with healthy adults who don't have sleep disorders — the authors admit this themselves. And who is most likely to be wearing a sleep tracker and catastrophizing over their scores?
Bill: Someone who thinks they have a sleep problem.
Alex: Exactly. So the population most harmed by inaccurate readings is precisely the population this study didn't include.
Bill: That's — okay. That's fair. I think I was treating "the methodology is solid" as a stronger defense than it actually is when the design itself has a gap that big. You're right that it matters who's in the room.
Alex: It doesn't make the findings wrong. The ICC scores are what they are. But it does mean we can't treat this as a neutral, comprehensive verdict on the whole industry.
Bill: Agreed. And there are other studies — one out of Belgium looking at six devices, one out of Korea looking at eleven — and they show a much wider range of performance. Some budget devices actually outperform the premium ones on certain metrics. The picture is genuinely complicated.
Alex: So when the headlines say "sleep trackers significantly misclassify your sleep stages" — that's not wrong, but —
Bill: But it's not the whole story. The honest version is: these devices are moderate to mediocre at sleep stage classification on individual nights. They are not clinical instruments. But they're also not entirely useless.
Alex: Which the "clinical-grade precision" marketing would absolutely never tell you.
Bill: No. And — I'm going to be honest, I used to run A/B tests where we'd describe something as "data-driven" specifically because it sounded more authoritative than the underlying evidence warranted. "Clinical grade" does the same thing. It's a phrase designed to make you stop asking questions.
Alex: Right.
Bill: What multiple studies do conclude is that over weeks and months, tracking trends — is your sleep improving overall, are you consistently getting less REM during stressful periods — that's actually meaningful data. The devices are better at that.
Alex: The problem is that's not how anyone uses them. People check their score every single morning.
Bill: And the score is telling you something the device genuinely cannot measure with precision. That's the mismatch. That's where the harm comes in.
Alex: And there's actually something weirdly reassuring in all of this — you flagged a stat that I'd have found hard to believe if it wasn't in the research.
Bill: Human sleep technicians — the trained professionals who score PSG readings for a living — only agree with each other about 80% of the time. Sleep staging is genuinely hard. The brain is complicated.
Alex: So we're holding wearables to a standard that humans don't even consistently meet.
Bill: Wearables hitting 70-plus percent on some metrics isn't nothing. It's just — not what's being marketed. And that gap between what it is and what it's sold as is exactly what creates the orthosomnia trap.
Alex: So if your tracker makes you curious about your sleep patterns over time? Could be useful. If you're waking up anxious every morning because your deep sleep score was low? That's the tracker harming you, full stop. Stop checking it.
Bill: And next time you see a headline that says a wearable is "clinical grade" — ask what they're actually measuring. Heart rate and movement are not brain waves. Any company that tells you otherwise is selling you something.
Alex: Sleep is not a performance. It's a biological process that mostly just needs you to get out of its way.
Bill: Which, honestly, is a pretty good rule for a lot of things.