"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in
:


"Adrian Tupper" wrote in message
...
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in
:

Not usually so soon. Rather, at around 14:30-15h .

My memory is probably faulty - that means it must end at about
17h00, or later. When I was there the chaps I was working with were
deeply annoyed by the Europeanisation, as they saw it, of Spanish
culture that removed the traditional siesta from the daily routine.
They considered a three and a half to four hour lunch break a
pitiful substitute for a pukka siesta.

I would go for the siesta option any time.

In warm climes it is the only thing that makes sense at that time of
day - even with air-conditioning.


I rather like siestas myself, but recent research suggests that
they are bad for the heart - the greatest danger to the heart is
getting out of bed in the morning, particularly on Monday mornings
(when most heart attacks happen) so, if you have a life where you
get out of bed twice a day you are putting a lot more strain on the
ticker.

Depends on how suddenly you make it happen probably.

Maybe. The study showed that siestas tended to reduce life expectency.

How on earth can they measure that?

I suppose that, if enough thought were put to the matter, with
hydraulic beds that gently lever you into a vertical position over the
final ten minutes of your kip this might be addressed that way.

No it's the difference between leaping out of bed when the alarm goes
off and pausing for a minute or two after waking up naturally.

It
seems that we haven't evolved for long siestaring - it makes sense,
even with the Aquatic Ape theory a siestaring pre-hominoid would
present a very easy snack for a crocodile or shark [though sharks,
strangely, don't seem to like the taste of people much].

Back on topic at last!

--
Adrian