Cheeky 12pm habit Aussies need to stop
A recent study has shown that napping during certain hours of the day could be associated with an increased risk of death.
According to the research published in the journal Sleep, data from wearable activity trackers showed that nap duration and timing were related to increased all-cause mortality among middle-aged and older adults.
Specifically, naps taken around the middle of the day were linked to a higher risk of death.
This development brings scientists closer to understanding whether certain napping habits should raise concerns about a person's health.
'Our study fills a gap in knowledge by showing that not just whether someone naps, but how long, how variable, and when they nap during the day may be meaningful indicators of future health risk,' said lead study author Chenlu Gao, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Health.
'Past studies have relied on self-reported nap habits, which are subject to recall bias.'
Study links naps with mortality
According to Mrs Gao, numerous studies have explored the link between night-time sleep and mortality.
However, she and her colleagues have 'long been interested in understanding daytime napping and its impact on health'.
'We saw a critical need to investigate whether objectively assessed napping behaviours are associated with longevity,' she explained.
The team analysed data from 86,565 non-shift working adults, aged 43 to 79 (with an average of 63), who were part of the UK Biobank, a comprehensive biomedical database.
Fifty-seven per cent of these participants were women.
They wore a device that tracked their rest and activity levels for seven days, with napping defined as any sleep occurring between 9am and 7pm.
During the 11-year follow-up period, 5819 of the study participants had died.
Researchers identified a higher risk of death associated with three factors: longer naps, greater day-to-day variability in nap length, and more naps around noon and early afternoon.
These associations remained true even after adjusting for factors such as body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking habits, and overnight sleep duration.
While the study established a correlation between different napping habits and mortality, it is crucial to note that it did not prove that napping causes an increased risk of death.
It is also uncertain whether these findings apply to the general population.
Why might napping be linked to mortality?
Currently, as there is no definitive evidence that naps directly cause increased mortality, sleep experts are examining the research for clues — and some suggest that the underlying reasons for napping may be more relevant.
Sleep disorders such as sleep apnoea or medical conditions that drain energy, like heart disease, could actually be the underlying cause of the nap-mortality connection.
The study did attempt to account for lifestyle factors, but it remains difficult to control for undiagnosed medical conditions.
Other experts propose that long, irregular midday naps could influence health by disrupting circadian rhythms, which are the body's internal sleep-wake cycles.
This disruption could affect various factors that influence mortality, such as inflammation, metabolism, and cardiovascular health.
Should we nap?
If you feel the need to nap, experts recommend aiming for less than 30 minutes, as this allows you to feel refreshed and energised without experiencing grogginess.
Napping earlier in the day can also help prevent your nap from interfering with your ability to sleep at night.
If you find yourself napping more frequently or for longer periods, you should consult your doctor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
Cheeky 12pm habit Aussies need to stop
A recent study has shown that napping during certain hours of the day could be associated with an increased risk of death. According to the research published in the journal Sleep, data from wearable activity trackers showed that nap duration and timing were related to increased all-cause mortality among middle-aged and older adults. Specifically, naps taken around the middle of the day were linked to a higher risk of death. This development brings scientists closer to understanding whether certain napping habits should raise concerns about a person's health. 'Our study fills a gap in knowledge by showing that not just whether someone naps, but how long, how variable, and when they nap during the day may be meaningful indicators of future health risk,' said lead study author Chenlu Gao, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Health. 'Past studies have relied on self-reported nap habits, which are subject to recall bias.' Study links naps with mortality According to Mrs Gao, numerous studies have explored the link between night-time sleep and mortality. However, she and her colleagues have 'long been interested in understanding daytime napping and its impact on health'. 'We saw a critical need to investigate whether objectively assessed napping behaviours are associated with longevity,' she explained. The team analysed data from 86,565 non-shift working adults, aged 43 to 79 (with an average of 63), who were part of the UK Biobank, a comprehensive biomedical database. Fifty-seven per cent of these participants were women. They wore a device that tracked their rest and activity levels for seven days, with napping defined as any sleep occurring between 9am and 7pm. During the 11-year follow-up period, 5819 of the study participants had died. Researchers identified a higher risk of death associated with three factors: longer naps, greater day-to-day variability in nap length, and more naps around noon and early afternoon. These associations remained true even after adjusting for factors such as body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking habits, and overnight sleep duration. While the study established a correlation between different napping habits and mortality, it is crucial to note that it did not prove that napping causes an increased risk of death. It is also uncertain whether these findings apply to the general population. Why might napping be linked to mortality? Currently, as there is no definitive evidence that naps directly cause increased mortality, sleep experts are examining the research for clues — and some suggest that the underlying reasons for napping may be more relevant. Sleep disorders such as sleep apnoea or medical conditions that drain energy, like heart disease, could actually be the underlying cause of the nap-mortality connection. The study did attempt to account for lifestyle factors, but it remains difficult to control for undiagnosed medical conditions. Other experts propose that long, irregular midday naps could influence health by disrupting circadian rhythms, which are the body's internal sleep-wake cycles. This disruption could affect various factors that influence mortality, such as inflammation, metabolism, and cardiovascular health. Should we nap? If you feel the need to nap, experts recommend aiming for less than 30 minutes, as this allows you to feel refreshed and energised without experiencing grogginess. Napping earlier in the day can also help prevent your nap from interfering with your ability to sleep at night. If you find yourself napping more frequently or for longer periods, you should consult your doctor.
ABC News
14 hours ago
- ABC News
Can 'biological clock' tests tell you anything worthwhile?
We all like to imagine we're ageing well. Now a simple blood or saliva test promises to tell us by measuring our "biological age". And then, as many have done, we can share how "young" we really are on social media, along with our secrets to success. While chronological age is how long you have been alive, measures of biological age aim to indicate how old your body actually is, purporting to measure "wear and tear" at a molecular level. The appeal of these tests is undeniable. Health-conscious consumers may see their results as reinforcing their anti-ageing efforts, or a way to show their journey to better health is paying off. But how good are these tests? Do they actually offer useful insights? Or are they just clever marketing dressed up to look like science? Over time, the chemical processes that allow our body to function, known as our "metabolic activity", lead to damage and a decline in the activity of our cells, tissues and organs. Biological age tests aim to capture some of these changes, offering a snapshot of how well, or how poorly, we are ageing on a cellular level. Our DNA is also affected by the ageing process. In particular, chemical tags (methyl groups) attach to our DNA and affect gene expression. These changes occur in predictable ways with age and environmental exposures, in a process called methylation. Research studies have used "epigenetic clocks", which measure the methylation of our genes, to estimate biological age. By analysing methylation levels at specific sites in the genome from participant samples, researchers apply predictive models to estimate the cumulative wear and tear on the body. Although the science is rapidly evolving, the evidence underpinning the use of epigenetic clocks to measure biological ageing in research studies is strong. Studies have shown epigenetic biological age estimation is a better predictor of the risk of death and ageing-related diseases than chronological age. Epigenetic clocks also have been found to correlate strongly with lifestyle and environmental exposures, such as smoking status and diet quality. In addition, they have been found to be able to predict the risk of conditions such as cardiovascular disease, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes. Taken together, a growing body of research indicates that at a population level, epigenetic clocks are robust measures of biological ageing and are strongly linked to the risk of disease and death. While these tests are valuable when studying populations in research settings, using epigenetic clocks to measure the biological age of individuals is a different matter and requires scrutiny. For testing at an individual level, perhaps the most important consideration is the "signal to noise ratio" (or precision) of these tests. This is the question of whether a single sample from an individual may yield widely differing results. A study from 2022 found samples deviated by up to nine years. So an identical sample from a 40-year-old may indicate a biological age of as low as 35 years (a cause for celebration) or as high as 44 years (a cause of anxiety). While there have been significant improvements in these tests over the years, there is considerable variability in the precision of these tests between commercial providers. So depending on who you send your sample to, your estimated biological age may vary considerably. Another limitation is there is currently no standardisation of methods for this testing. Commercial providers perform these tests in different ways and have different algorithms for estimating biological age from the data. As you would expect for commercial operators, providers don't disclose their methods. So it's difficult to compare companies and determine who provides the most accurate results — and what you're getting for your money. A third limitation is that while epigenetic clocks correlate well with ageing, they are simply a "proxy" and are not a diagnostic tool. In other words, they may provide a general indication of ageing at a cellular level. But they don't offer any specific insights about what the issue may be if someone is found to be "ageing faster" than they would like, or what they're doing right if they are "ageing well". So regardless of the result of your test, all you're likely to get from the commercial provider of an epigenetic test is generic advice about what the science says is healthy behaviour. While companies offering these tests may have good intentions, remember their ultimate goal is to sell you these tests and make a profit. And at a cost of around $500, they're not cheap. While the idea of using these tests as a personalised health tool has potential, it is clear that we are not there yet. For this to become a reality, tests will need to become more reproducible, standardised across providers, and validated through long-term studies that link changes in biological age to specific behaviours. So while one-off tests of biological age make for impressive social media posts, for most people they represent a significant cost and offer limited real value. The good news is we already know what we need to do to increase our chances of living longer and healthier lives. These include: We don't need to know our biological age in order to implement changes in our lives right now to improve our health. Hassan Vally is an associate professor of epidemiology at Deakin University. This piece first appeared on The Conversation.
News.com.au
20 hours ago
- News.com.au
Itching, swelling and burning after sex may be signs of a common allergy
Itchy genitalia, a burning sensation, and feeling breathless are all considered normal after sex. But for a growing number of women, these symptoms could be a sign of seminal plasma hypersensitivity (SPH) — an allergy to semen. While it's considered a rare allergy, it's also underdiagnosed. Michael Carroll, associate professor in reproductive science at Manchester Metropolitan University, explained it isn't triggered by sperm cells, but the fluid that carried the sperm. 'First documented in 1967, when a woman was hospitalised after a 'violent allergic reaction' to sex, SPH is now recognised as a type 1 hypersensitivity, the same category as hay fever, peanut allergy and cat dander,' he said, according to The Sun. Writing for The Conversation, Associate Professor Carroll said symptoms of SPH can range from mild to severe. While some women experience local reactions, such as burning, itching, redness and swelling of the vulva or vagina, others develop full-body symptoms such ashives, wheezing, and even anaphylaxis. He added: 'Until 1977, SPH was thought to affect fewer than 100 women globally. 'But a study led by allergist Jonathan Bernstein found among women reporting post-coital symptoms, nearly 12 per cent could be classified as having probable SPH. 'I conducted a small, unpublished survey in 2013 and found a similar 12 per cent rate. The true figure may be higher still. 'Many cases go unreported, misdiagnosed, or dismissed as STIs, yeast infections, or general 'sensitivity'. 'One revealing clue: symptoms disappear when condoms are used.' The main allergen, according to Carroll, is prostate-specific antigen — a protein produced by cells in the prostate gland. And cross-reactivity is a possibility, for example, f5, a protein found in dog dander, is structurally similar to PSA. So a woman allergic to dogs may also be allergic to semen too. Also, woman may not be the only ones affected, said Carroll. It's possible some men be allergic to their own semen too. A paper published in American Journal of Case Reports described a 22-year-old was consumed by sneezing, watery eyes, stomach cramps, muscle pain and deep fatigue in the hours after climaxing. The condition is known as post-orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS). While SPH doesn't cause infertility directly, it can complicate conception. Carroll said: 'Avoiding the allergen – usually the most effective treatment for allergies – isn't feasible for couples trying to conceive. Treatments include prophylactic antihistamines (antihistamine medications taken in advance of anticipated exposure to an allergen, or before allergy symptoms are expected to appear to prevent or reduce the severity of allergic reactions), anti-inflammatories and desensitisation using diluted seminal plasma. In more severe cases, couples may choose IVF with washed sperm, bypassing the allergic trigger altogether.
