在一篇日期为 2026-02-12 的 WIRED 文章中，作者在阅读 NASA 关于微重力中观察到的「中性身体姿势（neutral body posture）」研究后，连续 7 晚测试 Bedgear 可调式床架的「zero gravity」预设。消费者语境下的「zero gravity」睡姿通常指让头部与上半身以约 40 度角抬高，同时膝盖弯曲并抬至略高于心脏的位置，并被行销为可分散体重、减少脊椎压力、改善休息。这个实验被置于睡眠优化与强调姿势的健康潮流之中，同时指出 NASA 的工作是在记录身体在太空如何漂浮，而非规定人们在地球上应该如何睡觉。

文章把行销与专家说法，与亲身感受及基本穿戴式指标做对照。一位睡眠顾问列出可能的短期与长期好处（舒适、减少翻身、支持脊椎对齐），并表示它可能有助于下背痛、坐骨神经痛、关节不适、关节炎、腿部肿胀、胃食道逆流、打鼾与轻微呼吸问题，但也警告头部抬得过高可能拉扯颈部并影响呼吸，而且姿势无法凌驾光线、热度或噪音等因素；她建议做小幅度调整，并给自己几晚时间适应。为了测量，作者使用 Garmin Lily 2，该装置会根据心率、心率变异性、呼吸率与动作生成 0 到 100 的单一睡眠分数；作者保持作息不变，只改变床的角度，同时承认这不是一项对照研究，且穿戴式装置有其限制。

在主观感受上，作者觉得这个姿势不舒服、受限制，且会打乱夜间正常翻身移动；枕头取舍带来的颈部紧绷，以及早晨僵硬感增加。睡眠分数序列波动很大：day 1 是 84，day 2 是 57，day 3 是 61，day 4 是 43，day 5 是 80，day 6 是 80，day 7 是 58，7-day average 为 66，低于 Garmin 引用的 2024 使用者平均 71；文章强调的是不一致性多于平均值。一位 NASA 疲劳研究人员指出，睡眠中变换姿势是为了重新分配压力而很正常，强迫维持单一姿势可能产生新的不适，作者因此得出结论：「zero gravity」睡法并非普遍有益，更可靠的提升通常来自基本功，例如规律作息以及黑暗、安静的房间。

In a WIRED piece dated 2026-02-12, the author tests the “zero gravity” preset on a Bedgear adjustable bed frame for 7 consecutive nights after reading NASA research on “neutral body posture” observed in microgravity. Consumer “zero gravity” sleeping generally means reclining with the head and upper body elevated at about a 40-degree angle while the knees are bent and raised slightly above the heart, marketed as a way to distribute weight, reduce spinal pressure, and improve rest. The experiment is framed in the broader trend of sleep optimization and posture-focused wellness, while noting that NASA’s work documents how bodies float in space rather than prescribing how people should sleep on Earth.

The article contrasts marketing and expert claims with both lived experience and basic wearable metrics. A sleep consultant lists potential short-term and long-term benefits (comfort, reduced tossing, spinal alignment support) and suggests it may help issues like lower back pain, sciatica, joint discomfort, arthritis, leg swelling, reflux, snoring, and mild breathing problems, while warning that too much head elevation can strain the neck and affect breathing and that posture cannot override factors like light, heat, or noise; she advises small adjustments and allowing a few nights to adapt. For measurement, the author uses a Garmin Lily 2, which generates a single sleep score from 0 to 100 using heart rate, heart rate variability, respiration rate, and movement; the author keeps routine constant and changes only bed position, acknowledging this is not a controlled study and wearables have limits.

Subjectively, the author finds the position uncomfortable, restrictive, and disruptive to normal overnight movement, with neck tension from pillow tradeoffs and increased morning stiffness. The sleep-score sequence is volatile: day 1 is 84, day 2 is 57, day 3 is 61, day 4 is 43, day 5 is 80, day 6 is 80, and day 7 is 58, producing a 7-day average of 66, which is below Garmin’s cited 2024 user average of 71; the inconsistency is emphasized more than the mean. A NASA fatigue researcher notes that changing positions during sleep is normal for redistributing pressure and that forcing a single posture can create new discomfort, leading the author to conclude that “zero gravity” sleeping is not universally beneficial and that more reliable gains usually come from basics like consistent schedules and a dark, quiet room.