How stress of working long hours may alter your brain
Working excessively long hours can not only leave you tired and ratty, it could also change the very structure of your brain as it tries to cope with the stress, a study suggests.
The brains of those who worked more than 52 hours a week showed marked physical differences compared with those on less antisocial work schedules.
It is possible that those who work long hours might see a short-term benefit from increased volume in parts of the brain that govern alertness or efficiency, according to researchers in South Korea.
• Want better health, less anxiety, more sleep? You've got a nerve
But they believe it is likely that the changes are negative over a long period, and that prolonged periods of working long hours
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Today's parents are weaker than ever
Oh, how we love to pathologise normal life. Grief, heartbreak, misfortune or even boredom: why call these things what they are when there are exciting therapeutic terms out there? Terms that make us feel a hell of a lot better than any version – however kindly meant – of the old-school approach of 'That's life.' Terms that make us feel special. Well, there's a new term out there, one you'd better get used to, because it's the hot new condition in town: ' parental burnout.' Two professors of psychology from the University of Louvain in Belgium, Moira Mikolajczak and Isabelle Roskam, helped define the phrase, after gathering evidence from 30,000 parents worldwide – and what I'd give to read that evidence. Was it, for example, presented by people in diary form? If so, I'm guessing snippets might read a little like this: 'Knackered after a day out with the kids.' Yeah, that's just parenting I'm afraid. 'I sometimes fantasise about all the things I'd do if I didn't have kids.' Again, a totally normal symptom of parenting. 'I'm currently finding everything the little one does irritating.' At the risk of repeating myself: parenting. However it was presented, Mikolajczak and her team used that evidence to break down 'parental burnout' into four stages. The first was, predictably, ' exhaustion '. Although they warn that 'this is not just fatigue that disappears after two or three good nights' sleep', but when the 'thought of what you have to do with or for your children is already exhausting.' The second occurs when you find yourself 'emotionally distancing' yourself from your child, and 'is a defence mechanism, to save the little energy you have yourself.' The third is 'loss of pleasure in parenting', and the fourth 'shame'. 'Suddenly, you've become this horrible parent who's screaming at the kids, who is impatient, who's stressed all the time.' Not to be flippant, but if these are the criteria, then I'm fairly sure that I and every woman I know has at some point suffered from 'parental burnout'. And while I won't play down how hard parenting is (it's harder than any job I've ever done), I do feel it necessary to point out that it has always been hard, that modern parents don't get to own the parenting struggle – and could it be that we're too soft? In a million different logistical ways, first world parenting will be far easier than ever before. We are not, by and large, scrubbing nappies, making every meal from scratch, nursing our children through outbreaks of tuberculosis or watching them die of smallpox. Yes, we have terrifying new challenges, like screens, but when people cite 'the struggle to balance increasingly busy professional lives with the pressure to achieve a perfect family life', I get impatient. Just as we don't get to own the hardship of parenting, we are not the first generation in history to be 'busy'. We are not the first to strive for perfection, and we are certainly not the first to feel disappointed with ourselves for failing to achieve it. When it comes to turning a normal human experience into an ailment, however – a malady, syndrome, condition or affliction – we are true innovators. Trailblazers, no less.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
We use silly voices with each other – and it makes it hard to have a sex life
My wife and I have been together for seven years. I honestly can't remember the last time we had sex – it's been at least a few years. For most of our relationship, I've taken on the role of caretaker. She struggles with anxiety, was recently diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and often needs a lot of emotional hand-holding. Over time, it's taken a toll on how I see our relationship. We also fell into a habit of using silly, childish voices with each other. What started out as playful has ended up making me feel more like her mother than her wife. For a long time, I didn't have much of a libido, and to her credit, she didn't push the issue. But now that my sex drive has returned, it feels as if it's all I can think about – except I just can't seem to feel that way about her any more. Every time I'm briefly tempted to initiate something, it gets snuffed out by the same patterns: the childish behaviour, the emotional neediness, the feeling of being needed more as a caretaker than a partner. Is it possible to break out of this dynamic? Or have we crossed a line that can't be uncrossed? When one partner becomes a caregiver to the other, the erotic charge between them is very likely to be reduced. And when the childlike element you described creeps into the relationship, a sexual taboo arises. Your feeling of being mother to a child is most definitely not sexy; it connects your psyche with a deep and forbidden sense of incest that is never going to allow you to desire your partner. If you want to desire her again you will have to encourage the adult side of her to be present and engage with you as a competent individual in your lives together. It's possible she may have developed some of the behaviours you dislike as a coping mechanism. If you do not want to spend your life mothering her you must refuse to support the childish behaviour, which is a form of control and passive-aggression. The first step would be to have a frank, adult, non-blaming conversation about the state of your union. Validate the parts of her that are mature and self-reliant, and gently let her know that you would be doing her a disservice to support her learned helplessness any longer. Pamela Stephenson Connolly is a US-based psychotherapist who specialises in treating sexual disorders. If you would like advice from Pamela on sexual matters, send us a brief description of your concerns to (please don't send attachments). Each week, Pamela chooses one problem to answer, which will be published online. She regrets that she cannot enter into personal correspondence. Submissions are subject to our terms and conditions.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The four US states where psychopaths are most likely to live... are YOU living near one?
Scientists have uncovered the US states where people are more likely to have 'dark' traits. Researchers measured four traits — narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism — across all 50 states, using data from at least 100 participants in each. Nevada, Louisiana, New York and Texas scored among the highest when it came to these devious characteristics. The study suggested that higher levels of dark traits in certain areas may be influenced by unfavorable societal conditions, such as poverty, crime, inequality, and scarcity of resources, which can foster dark traits. Nevada scored the highest likely due to its gambling culture linked to risky behavior, while South Dakota suffers from high poverty and inequality, poor health care and limited resources. New York and Texas experience stark economic inequality, with extreme wealth right next to poverty, which may have attributed to the high score. However, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York and Maine are among the states that scored the lowest in dark traits. These states typically enjoy more favorable societal conditions, such as higher education and income, better healthcare and strong social services. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, who asked thousands of people to answer a survey via their own website. The data of 144,576 Americans was collected from February 2, 2019 to February 19, 2024. To measure aversive societal conditions (ASC), the team creator an indicator based on corruption, inequality, poverty and violence. They used Census Bureau data on inequality and poverty, homicide rates and Justice Department corruption convictions, Newsweek reported. Other states that scored high included Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, states with high crime rates, poverty and worse access healthcare. California also made the list as it has some of the widest income gaps in the country, especially in major urban areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco, where wealthy tech and entertainment sectors coexist with large populations facing poverty and homelessness. Certain areas in California also struggle with higher crime rates, gang activity and drug-related issues, which may contribute to increased suspicion, aggression or defensive behaviors among residents. The team found a small but significant link between a state's ASC score and the average Dark Factor of Personality (D) score of its people. The study suggested that higher levels of dark traits in certain areas may be influenced by unfavorable societal conditions, such as poverty, crime , inequality, and scarcity of resources, which can foster dark traits Alaska, Oregon and much of the Rocky Mountain states scored the opposite. Experts have suggested that the lower D scores in Alaska, Oregon, and many Rocky Mountain states can be attributed to a confluence of geographical isolation, cultural heritage emphasizing individualism and resilience and social environments that promote cooperation and adaptability. This pattern remained nearly the same after we controlled for age and gender, researchers said. The team also found that the conditions in US state, measured by the ASC index, are related to people's aversive personalities about 20 years later. This supports the idea that a society's environment can help shape a person's traits and adds to what is known about how aversive personalities develop. 'This is to be expected as both genetic and other socioecological factors likely also affect individuals' aversive personality,' researchers shared in the study published in . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 'Moreover, even relatively small effects can be cumulative in nature, so the relation between ASC and D may have important consequences at scale, especially because higher aversive personality levels imply notable costs for others and/or society.' Professor Ingo Zettler told Newsweek that he and his team were curious if 'adverse societal conditions contribute to the proliferation of selfish, egoistic and other traits.' 'Aversive personality traits are associated with behaviors such as aggression, cheating and exploitation, and thus with high social costs,' he added. 'Therefore, even small variations can lead to large differences in how societies function.'
