Sloths Not as Lazy as Thought

In a study that illustrates the pitfalls of relying on research done on animals in captivity, biologists found that wild sloths slept far less than they previously thought. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Picture a sloth and what do you see? Some slow-moving, hairy beast, just hanging around, maybe even catching some Zs. And that’s just your husband. Ok, seriously. We’ve all seen films of three-toed sloths, odd-looking creatures that spend their days hanging upside down in the rainforest canopy. They move so slowly that mossy looking algae actually grows on them. And legend has it they sleep like 16 hours a day.

But researchers from Germany and the U.S. have found that sloths might not be the slug-a-beds we think. Using equipment designed to monitor the brain waves of animals in the wild, the scientists found that sloths actually spend less than 10 hours a day asleep in the trees. Their results appear in the current issue of the Royal Society journal, Biology Letters.

Why the discrepancy? Well, the earlier estimate comes from work done with animals in captivity. And maybe in the sloth sleep lab, there’s not much to do besides snooze. In the wild, on the other hand, the animals need to keep an eye open for potential predators, like snakes or birds. And they also spend time foraging for food. Because nobody’s bringing a sloth any breakfast in bed.—Karen Hopkin

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe