"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