Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Study: Night Owls have a 10% Greater Chance of Dying

posted by mrpg on Sunday April 29 2018, @06:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the I've-burned-twice-as-fast dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Vox reports

We all have a preferred time for sleeping — a body clock. There are “morning people,” “evening people [aka 'night owls'],” and those in between. Our preferences for when to sleep are called chronotypes. And, increasingly, researchers have been investigating what happens to people whose body clocks are out of sync with the rest of society.

[...] Those who reported having a later chronotype (people who are night owls) had a 10 percent increased likelihood of dying compared to people who had an earlier chronotype. And this was true for people of all ages in the study, and for both men and women.

[...] It’s hard to know how all these risks interplay with one another, and there’s no clear answer as to why there may be health risks to being a late sleeper.

But here’s a compelling hypothesis: When our biological clock is out of sync with society’s, our whole biology gets thrown off, and many aspects of our lives grow more stressful. Having a very late chronotype is like living in a constant state of jet lag, which takes a toll on the body.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Study: Night Owls have a 10% Greater Chance of Dying | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 51 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:30AM (9 children)

    by edIII (791) on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:30AM (#673285)

    That's being simplistic. It's 100% chance over a finite period of time. Which is really to say that nobody we know, recognize, and scientifically quantify, has succeeded in making selections against death more than 117 years. Or whatever the oldest being recorded is. Thankfully, the actual of chance of dying any one moment is fairly low, although continually increasing.

    It's more accurate to say that all of us have an increasing chance of death overtime, greatly influenced by how we select against it (hundreds or thousands of times per day possibly).

    On another note, since we are all essentially decaying produce, a continually increasing chance of death is probably not a bad thing.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2, Redundant) by aristarchus on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:40AM (3 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:40AM (#673291) Journal

    That's being simplistic. It's 100% chance over a finite period of time. Which is really to say that nobody we know, recognize, and scientifically quantify, has succeeded in making selections against death more than 117 years. Or whatever the oldest being recorded is.

    You say that like I was not even here! I go with Steven Wright [someecards.com]:, "I plan to live forever. So far, so good."

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by requerdanos on Sunday April 29 2018, @09:38PM (4 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 29 2018, @09:38PM (#673490) Journal

    Who's being simplistic?

    FTFS:

    Those who reported having a later chronotype (people who are night owls) had a 10 percent increased likelihood of dying compared to people who had an earlier chronotype.

    Does it say "at any given moment"? No.
    Does it say "Per given time period"? No.
    Does it say anything that makes any kind of sense whatsoever? No.

    There are people who are otherwise possibly quite intelligent but are "measurement morons", unable to articulate statistics or measurements together with rates or units of measure that make them meaningful as opposed to noise. Many of them seem to go into journalism. Example: See above.

    The stats on dying are: 1 out of every 1 person dies.
    The stats on night owls dying are: 1 out of every 1 person dies.
    The stats on morning people are: 1 out of every 1 person dies.

    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday April 30 2018, @05:33AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday April 30 2018, @05:33AM (#673606) Homepage Journal

      This is a very dumb tweet. Because the headline isn't great, that's true, but it's not the headline from the article. It's a dumb headline that Anonymous Coward made up. That the editor didn't do much of anything about. Not a great submitter, not a great editor, at least they gave it a shot. The article has a better headline, very easy to understand. And the article explains so much. This guy (Requerdanos) goes on and on, griping & bitching about how confused he is. But he didn't read the article. And he DIDN'T EVEN READ THE HEADLINE of the article. Or he wouldn't be confused. He pretended to read it. Called everybody morons. And fooled a couple of Moderators. I said Mexico isn't sending us their best people. And here's the proof. Very sad situation!

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Monday April 30 2018, @07:48PM (2 children)

      by edIII (791) on Monday April 30 2018, @07:48PM (#673885)

      I wasn't responding to the article, but to the comment made by the GP.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Tuesday May 01 2018, @01:45AM (1 child)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday May 01 2018, @01:45AM (#673994) Journal
        "I wasn't responding to the article, but to the comment made by the GP. "

        And I was responding to the article. Don't be dense.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?