How to choose the best sleeping position for you, according to the experts
A key part of the nightly bedtime routine is getting comfortable in a certain sleeping position — but how do you know which one is best?
A majority of American adults (69%) sleep on their side, according to a recent poll. That is followed by those who sleep on their backs (19%) and their stomachs (12%).
Sleep expert Wendy Troxel, PhD – a RAND Corporation senior behavioral specialist and licensed clinical psychologist in Utah – said that sleeping positions are "highly subjective" to each individual.
"The primary consideration should always be individual comfort, [which] can depend on factors like body type and any underlying medical conditions," she said in an interview with Fox News Digital.
Troxel mentioned that side sleeping, particularly on the left, is "frequently recommended" for people facing complications such as sleep apnea or acid reflux.
"These conditions can worsen when lying on the back," she noted.
For those who experience back or hip pain, Troxel suggests sleeping on the back with a pillow under the knees.
Using a mattress with proper lumbar support can also be beneficial for these conditions.
"Ultimately, the healthiest sleep position is one that maintains spinal alignment and distributes weight evenly."
"Ultimately, the healthiest sleep position is one that maintains spinal alignment and distributes weight evenly, which is why selecting the right mattress and pillow is just as important as the position itself," Troxel advised.
Dr. William Lu, MD, medical director at Dreem Health in San Francisco, agreed that there is not one best overall sleep position, as certain conditions may require a particular position shift.
"Side sleeping may be best for patients who exclusively snore when sleeping on their back or have obstructive sleep apnea," he shared in an interview with Fox News Digital.
"However, if you have shoulder pain or upper extremity discomfort, supine/back sleeping may be a better option."
For people who snore or have untreated sleep apnea, Lu said that back sleeping would generally be the "worst position" for these conditions.
"While sleeping on the back, gravity can pull the tongue, mandible and soft tissue backward, causing more obstruction of the airway," he warned.
For more Health articles, visit foxnews.com/health
Lu mentioned that there are many positional therapy devices that can be used to keep people from sleeping on their backs if this is a concern.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
29 minutes ago
- Medscape
Experimental MS Drug Nearly Eliminates Disease Activity
PHOENIX — Frexalimab, a second-generation anti-CD40 ligand monoclonal antibody provides extended tight control of multiple sclerosis (MS) whether measured by relapse or brain imaging at 2-year follow-up, results of an open-label extension (OLE) of a phase 2 trial showed. 'At week 96, there was almost complete suppression of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions with very similar pattern seen with new or enhancing T2 lesions,' said study investigator Stephen Krieger, MD, professor of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City. Two phase 3 international studies with this drug are already enrolling. 'Part of the interest in frexalimab and anti-CD40 therapies is the idea that one can modulate both B- and T-cell activity without cell depletion,' explained Krieger, who presented the long-term open-label data on May 29 at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) 2025 Annual Meeting. Near Complete Disease Suppression The latest data suggest frexalimab is fulfilling its promise. Over follow-up to date, there has been nearly complete suppression of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) lesions on MRI among those taking the dose now being tested in the phase 3 trials. At 2 years, with an annualized relapse rate of 0.08%, 92% of patients were relapse-free. The randomized portion of this phase 2 trial attracted attention when it was published a year ago in The New England Journal of Medicine , but the 2-year results showed that the efficacy and safety observed at 12 weeks persist. In the controlled trial, 129 patients with relapsing MS were randomized to 300-mg, 400-mg, 600-mg, or 1200-mg frexalimab or matching placebos. Suppression of Gd+ lesions was the primary endpoint. At 12 weeks, the adjusted mean of new Gd+ lesions was 1.4 in the combined placebo groups but 0.3 in the 300-mg frexalimab group and 0.2 in the 1200-mg group. Of those who participated in the randomized portion of the phase 2 trial, 97% continued into the long-term OLE. The OLE consisted of two arms: 1200-mg frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks or 300-mg frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. At the end of 2 years, when 82% of those enrolled in the OLE were still on medication, the adjusted mean for new T1-weighted Gd+ lesions ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 across study arms whether on continuous frexalimab or switched from placebo to frexalimab. For those who were initiated on the 1200-mg dose in the controlled portion of the trial and remained on this dose for the OLE, the mean was 0.1. For the secondary endpoint of new or enlarging T2 lesions, the suppression at 2 years was almost the same. Again, the adjusted mean for new lesions across all arms ranged from 0.1 to 0.3. For those receiving the 1200-mg dose, the mean was 0.2. Mean T2 lesion volume increased in the placebo arm but not in the treatment arms during the randomized phase. After entering the OLE, T2 lesion volume fell in placebo patients now on active therapy. In the 1200-mg arm, the fall in lesion volume during the randomized phase continued into the first 24 weeks of the OLE. After 24 weeks, the lesion volume remained suppressed with no return toward baseline. Those initiated on placebo never caught up after switching to frexalimab. Relapse Rare — 2% at 96 Weeks On the 1200-mg dose of frexalimab, only 8% had any relapse recorded over the extended follow-up. In half, there was a single relapse. Only 2% had three or more relapses. While the Expanded Disability Status Scale score declined slightly among placebo patients once started on active therapy, there was no change from baseline through 96 weeks in patients started on any active therapy. As postulated by earlier preclinical and clinical studies, frexalimab had no effect on lymphocyte counts over time. Over the 96-week follow-up, levels of immunoglobulins remained unchanged, according to Krieger who showed graphs with straight lines for these values over the course of the OLE. Due to the potential of suppressing activation of both T and B cells over time, anti-CD40 therapies have long been considered a promising mechanism for control of MS. However, clinical development of first-generation drugs was abandoned because of an association with thromboembolism. 'Frexalimab has been engineered to avoid these events through a change in the Fc receptors with reduces downstream inflammatory events,' said Krieger. The long-term data support this premise. Over 2 years, there was one pulmonary embolism, but this exception was observed in a patient with a viral illness and a genetic predisposition for an inflammatory response, according to Krieger. When surveying other adverse events, 'nothing jumps out' in the OLE relative to the randomized phase. One potential exception is a rise in liver function tests observed in two (4%) patients on the 1200-mg dose. Only one of these patients discontinued therapy, and the levels returned to normal over time in both. The effects of the anti-CD40 mechanism on both the adaptive and innate immune systems suggest frexalimab might offer efficacy for both progressive and relapsing MS. In the ongoing phase 3 program, one of the trials (FREXALT) is enrolling patients with relapsing MS. The other (FREVIVA) is enrolling patients with progressive disease. Fulfilling its Promise Commenting on the results, Amit Bar-Or, MD, Chief of the Multiple Sclerosis Division, the Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, described frexalimab as 'a very interesting drug.' He agreed that the CD40 ligand is a promising target in MS but cautioned that these phase 2 data cannot answer the most interesting questions. This includes the more robust evidence of safety and efficacy from phase 3 trials, but it remains unclear whether the benefits extend beyond controlling relapsing disease. 'I think there is particular interest in whether it will also show extended benefit in progressive MS, and this will be a major focus of interest from the next set of studies,' Bar-Or said.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians
A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn't afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I've come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way. People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional – too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult. I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today. By tracing the roots of today's system and all its problems, it's easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different. My research and that of many others show that today's high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good. Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being. Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality. Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time. Today, that legacy is painfully visible. States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace. The system's architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid's scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike. Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like 'rugged individualism' and 'freedom of choice' have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach. Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as 'socialized medicine' or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled 'Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,' which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare. The health care system's administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn't accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries. Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system's underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system. The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats. When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce. These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives. All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect. Change is hard not because reformers haven't tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability. This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers. Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people's options really are. Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency. Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Zachary W. Schulz, Auburn University Read more: Buyouts can bring relief from medical debt, but they're far from a cure Public health and private equity: What the Walgreens buyout could mean for the future of pharmacy care Migrants often can't access US health care until they are critically ill – here are some of the barriers they face Zachary W. Schulz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Texas woman dies from brain-eating amoeba after using tap water for sinus rinse
How to stay safe from the brain-eating amoeba Parasite called Naegleria fowleri has been found in several states and is blamed for 3 deaths in the U.S. this year Parasite called Naegleria fowleri has been found in several states and is blamed for 3 deaths in the U.S. this year A Texas woman died from an infection caused by a brain-eating amoeba after using tap water in a nasal irrigation device, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A case report from the agency said the woman died of primary amebic meningoencephalitis, or PAM, a rare but often fatal brain infection caused by the Naegleria fowleri organism. The previously healthy 71-year-old developed severe symptoms, including fever, headache and altered mental status, within four days after using the nasal irrigation device, the case report said. Despite medical treatment for a suspected PAM infection, eight days after the symptoms began, she developed seizures and died. The tap water she used for the sinus rinse came from an RV's water system at a campground in Texas, according to the case report. The CDC recommends the use of distilled, sterile or boiled and cooled tap water for nasal irrigation. PAM is also typically associated with recreational water activities, as the amoeba thrives in warm freshwater lakes, rivers and hot springs. Infections can occur if water containing the ameba goes up the nose and to the brain. To reduce your risk, the CDC suggests holding your nose or wearing a nose clip if you are jumping or diving into fresh water or keeping your head above water in hot springs. In rare cases, people have also become infected from pools and splash pads that did not have enough chlorine, the CDC says. You cannot, however, get a Naegleria fowleri infection from swallowing contaminated water or from someone else who is infected.
