On the Arctic 1000 they "slept with" their food. After re-reading parts of the site I understand why. They could not afford to loose their food under any circumstance and they were prepared to defend their food. If the food were kept some distance from them it could be gone before they had a chance to defend it. I put "slept with" in quotes because its meaning is unclear. If sleeping with your food means your food is inside whatever you are inside, or it is in contact with you, I would recommend against this. I am guessing that "slept with" meant that it was within arms length. This, by the way, is the approach that Ray Jardine mentions in Beyond Backpacking. He says that a hoisted bear bag is like a billboard for scavengers. Your food is now up in the prevailing breeze where the smell can be carried far and wide. For me, it is clear that bear bagging is not always the right answer. It's not allowed in Yosemite for a reason. I am not against it and usually do it, however.
My handling of food varies with the situation. The only constant in my case is the odor proof bags. If the smell of my food is below the background smell then the animal has to look for it. It's presence is not advertised, making it harder to get. I am now very mindful of smells.
Now that my food is harder to find because it is hard to smell, I can do other things to make it more trouble than it is worth. If I can, I suspend it off the ground. I sleep in a hammock, so I am suspended as well. Absolutely nothing touches the ground when there are trees. If I stop for a nap I will likely use the hammock, my pack, with the food in it, will be hung from the line holding the hammock up. If there are no trees then you have to get a little more creative. I will try just about anything that is not more trouble than it is worth, and makes it harder for animals. Rocks, bushes, a ledge or a crack in a cliff are all options. I might even bury my food in the sand. I've never had to do that, so I don't know...
If I could, I would never eat where I sleep. I am often with scouts so this is not always an option. If I am in a campground with others, my food just needs to be harder to find and get than the food of those around me. My fellow campers often set a low bar. If I am going though the trouble to surpass those around me it is usually easy to go the extra mile.
If I stop to eat or nap I want my food close so I can defend it. As the length of the trip and it's remoteness increases the importance of not loosing your food increases. Keeping your food close and being able to defend it is important. Does that change for shorter trips? I don't know. Common wisdom is to keep your food away from you. Does that just encourage animals because they don't have to overcome their fear of you to approach your food? Does requiring the use of organized camp sites contribute to the problem? I think it does.
The Ursack is something I am very interested in. It seems to be a very easy way to keep your food safer and seems to work everywhere. The weight may very well be worth it.
This is an area where I am always learning. Each place you go has different animals and animal behavior. The bears in Yosemite are certainly different than the bears in Colorado. In my experience they are largely a non-issue here. I have never lost my food to an animal so I have either been lucky for years or I'm doing something right.