Sunday, February 2, 2014

New mattress research

Traditional foam, gel-based, or plan-based?


http://www.whatsthebestbed.org/which-memory-foam-mattress-performs-best-traditional-gel-plant-based/

Off-Gassing & Odor:

The most commonly voiced concern is the release of VOCs and off-gassing:
  • Traditional memory foam created from petrochemicals have been shown to release 61 chemicals, 18 of which are dangerous enough to warrant concern from state and international agencies. Anywhere from 5-15% of people may experience discomfort with the odor, and it is a fairly frequent complaint seen in reviews.
  • Gel-infused memory foam is an unknown at the present as it has only recently been introduced. Since the effect of the gel has not been thoroughly tested the composition of the remainder of the mattress will be an indicator. It is believed that most companies have combined gel with traditional memory foam (see above) so likely the profile is quite similar.
  • Plant-based memory foam mattresses can be made VOC-free depending on the process and manufacturer. Those that are may still have a “new” smell, but this is not composed of harmful chemicals.

Heat Retention/Sleeping Hot

The release of trapped heat has been mentioned by 8-10% of the owners of traditional memory foam mattresses throughout the years. A recent memory foam comparison article from Mattress-Inquirer.com goes into this subject in more detail for those who want to see more technical information.
  • Traditional memory foam has received the highest rate of complaint, yet continue to produce their mattresses in the same manner. Some manufacturers cut holes in the foam or use convoluted layers but this seems to have minimal effect.
  • Gel-infused memory foam manufacturers have reported their mattresses sleep cooler than traditional, although these claims have been contested and disproven by Tempurpedic (traditional)  and Cargill (plant-based). The gel technology relies on ambient heat being passed through the gel to other portions of the mattress, which may be slightly beneficial initially. However, it seems as though the gel eventually warms to body heat.
  • Plant based memory foam mattress manufacturers such as Amerisleep have proven to create a 10X increase in breathability over traditional memory foam and shown to sleep 25% cooler than gel.



Response Time / “Stuck” Feeling:

Response time is determined by a number of factors.  Composition, changeable viscosity, the rate of elasticity and resilience all factor into response time. The slower the mattress returns to its original state or remolds, the more likely complaints are. Commonly voiced complaints include a trapped or sinking feeling as well as decreased sexual enjoyment.  The measured rate of the top brands in each category are as follows:
  • Tempurpedic traditional memory foam mattresses 45-60 seconds.
  • Gel memory foams were 30-45 seconds.
  • Amerisleep (plant-based) memory foam mattresses 5-8 seconds.

Memory Foam Mattress Durability

The durability of these memory foams may vary even within lines from the same manufacturer. Memory foam density is measured based on the weight of one cubic foot of memory foam. Anything with a weight less than 4lb. is considered inferior as it will not last, while anything over 5.3 lbs will be too dense to be comfortable in thicker layers. The ideal is between 4.5 – 5.3 lbs for both comfort and durability. Here are the same brands as above compared on density:
  • #1 in this category belongs to Amerisleep (plant-based) with its density ranges between 4.5 and 5.3 pounds across the whole line.
  • # 2 belongs to Tempurpedic (traditional), who would have tied for first except for their recent inclusion of their Simplicity line at a 2.5 lb density, and 4.0 lb densities in other lines.
  • #3 in this category goes to the gel-infused Serta iComfort mattresses due to concerns about their composition which may lead to uneven wear, and densities ranging from 3.0-5.0 lbs. As it is a new product, few real verified reviews are available.

Result -
looking into the prices for Amerisleep
http://www.amerisleep.com/mattresses-comparison   


Lower Back Pain (LBP) prevention - clinical information

seems like researchers don't care much for the subject of back pain prevention!

http://xn--www-rp0a.backpaineurope.org/web/files/How%20to%20prevent%20low%20back%20pain.pdf

EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General population (P)


P1: physical exercise
Evidence. Two systematic reviews18,19 and one primary care guideline20 were found on
exercise for prevention in the general population. All the authors’ main conclusions
were that physical exercise has a positive effect in the prevention of back pain, further
episodes and work absence. Effect sizes were reported to be small to moderate. One
systematic review found for pregnant women21 concluded that water gymnastics has a
preventive effect on future back pain.
Recommendation. Physical exercise is recommended to prevent absence due to back
pain and the occurrence or duration of further back pain episodes (level A). The effect
size is moderate. There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against any specific
kind of exercise, or the frequency/intensity of training (level B). Water gymnastics could
be recommended to reduce (short-term) back pain and extended work loss during and
following pregnancy (level C).


P2: information/education/training (back schools)
Evidence: information and education. One systematic review22 found inconsistent results
on the effect of information for prevention in back pain. More recently, a controlled trial
of a public health multimedia campaign found improved beliefs about back pain, a
reduction in days off work and reduced use of the health care system.23
Recommendation: information and education. Information and education about back pain,
if based on biopsychosocial principles, should be considered for the general population;
it improves back beliefs and can have a positive influence on health and vocational
outcomes, although the effect size might be relatively small (level C). Information and
education focused principally on a biomedical or biomechanical model cannot be
recommended (level C).
Evidence: back schools/training. A recent Cochrane review24 defined back school as a
group intervention, conducted or supervised by a paramedical therapist or a medical
specialist, which consisted of both an education/skills programme and exercises. The
authors found that there was: (1) conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of back
schools on further work loss; (2) limited evidence that back schools show no
differences in long term recurrence rates of LBP episodes. The authors concluded that
back schools might be effective for patients with recurrent and chronic pain, with the
most promising interventions being those with a high intensity (3–5-weeks stay in
specialized centres). The effect sizes of these interventions were judged small.
Recommendation: back schools/training. Back schools based on a biomechanical approach
with emphasis on teaching lifting techniques are not recommended (level A).



P3: lumbar supports/back belts
Evidence. Two systematic reviews18,19 and one primary care guideline20 evaluated five
RCTs and two non-randomized trials on lumbar supports/back belts for prevention of
back pain or back problems. All concluded that lumbar support or back belts are no
more beneficial than either no intervention or other preventive interventions, and that
they might even be detrimental. The combination of back belts with back school is no
better or worse than back school alone.
Recommendation. Lumbar supports/back belts are not recommended for prevention in
LBP among the general population (level A).


P4: furniture
Evidence: mattresses.No systematic reviews on the use of mattresses for the prevention
of back pain were found. Twelve published studies were found, which reported
interventions aiming at reducing back pain by using different mattresses. The design of
the studies, their methodological quality and the results do not allow any conclusions
with respect to prevention in back pain, although one RCT suggests that patients might
have less pain with a medium-firm rather than hard mattress.25
Recommendation: mattresses. There is insufficient robust evidence to recommend for or
against any specific mattresses for prevention in back pain (level C), although existing
persistent symptoms might reduce with a medium-firm rather than a hard mattress
(level C).
Evidence: chairs. No acceptable evidence for any preventive aspects of chairs was found;
the three studies retrieved had inappropriate methodology.

Recommendation: chairs. There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against any
specific chairs for prevention in LBP (level D).


P5: shoe insoles/correction of leg length discrepancies
Evidence. No systematic reviews on the use of shoe insoles, shock-absorbing heel
inserts or orthoses for the prevention of back pain were found. Seven clinical trials
reported interventions aiming to reduce back pain by use of different insoles: only two
of those reported a beneficial effect from orthoses.26,27 No acceptable study
concerning prevention of LBP by correction of leg length discrepancy was identified.
Recommendation. The use of shoe insoles or orthoses is not recommended for
prevention of back problems (level A). There is insufficient evidence to recommend for
or against correction of leg length inequality for prevention in LBP (level D).
How to prevent low back pain 545P6: manipulation
Evidence. No acceptable studies reporting on the value of regular manipulative
treatment for prevention of LBP were found.
Recommendation. No evidence was found to support recommending regular
manipulative treatment for the prevention in LBP (level D).