logo
No more excuses! Men DON'T sleep through the sound of a baby crying, experts reveal

No more excuses! Men DON'T sleep through the sound of a baby crying, experts reveal

Daily Mail​07-07-2025
It's a well-worn trope that mothers will wake at the slightest stir from their baby while fathers peacefully doze on.
But scientists now say that dads have no excuses for missing midnight nappy changes.
Scientists from Aarhus University in Denmark found that men were just as likely to be woken by the sounds of crying as women.
While women were slightly more likely to be woken by 'whisper level' sounds, computer modelling shows this cannot explain why they do so much more of the care.
The researchers monitored 142 non-parents while they slept and recorded how often they woke up in response to the sound of a baby crying.
Women were, on average, about 14 per cent more likely to wake up to sounds between 33 and 44 decibels - about as loud as birdsong or a library.
However, men and women woke with the same frequency as soon as the volume started to approach that of a real baby's crying.
Lead researcher Professor Christine Parsons told MailOnline: 'We had participants all waking up and we didn't have evidence that men were sleeping through.'
Scientists have busted the myth that men are more likely to sleep through a baby's crying than women, finding only minor differences in how the sexes respond to nighttime noises
Although the idea that men can sleep through their baby's crying is a myth, there are real reasons to think that women might wake up more frequently in the night.
Studies have shown that women tend to report more disturbed sleep overall, regardless of sounds.
Likewise, research suggests that women might be more sensitive to high-pitched sounds.
However, Professor Parsons' research, published in the journal Emotion, shows that any differences only translate into small changes in waking patterns when the sounds are very quiet.
More importantly, these small statistical differences cannot explain the large gap in care burdens.
In a second trial, the researchers gave 117 first-time Danish parents an app to log their nighttime care over a week.
Then, the researchers used simulations to predict what that distribution of nighttime care would look like if the only factor were those differences found by the first study.
Professor Parsons says: 'What we found was that women did 75 per cent of the nighttime caregiving.
'If we estimate how much caregiving would emerge from that small difference [in sound responses], it would look much more equal between men and women.'
What this shows is that inherent biological or psychological differences in how men and women respond to sounds in the night cannot explain why women do more of the care.
These findings come in stark contrast to the extremely widespread myth that men aren't as easily woken by their children.
In particular, Professor Parsons singled out an influential but unscientific survey funded by Lemsip, which claimed that the sound of the wind or the buzz of a fly were more likely to wake men than the sound of a child crying.
While these findings weren't peer-reviewed and had no scientific merit whatsoever, these ideas have spread extremely far.
Professor Parsons says: 'When I talk to scientists at conferences, they have actually heard of it and say, "Wasn't there that paper on waking behaviour?"'
'But these are phantom papers and phantom ideas, and if an idea confirms a suspicion or a belief that people have, then it is very difficult to change people's minds about it.'
The study focused on adults without children in order to see whether pre-parenthood gender differences alone affected nighttime care patterns.
However, pregnancy and childbirth cause massive hormonal changes that might affect waking times.
There are also good reasons why new mothers might get up more in the night, especially if they are breastfeeding.
Similarly, men in the OECD receive an average of 2.3 weeks of parental leave compared to 18.5 weeks for women.
This means women get more practice caring for babies at night and don't have to wake up for work in the morning.
All of these other factors, alongside societal expectations, are likely to be important in explaining why women do so much more of the nightly care.
Professor Parsons says: 'I'm not excluding any of those things, but this is not really what our paper is about.
'What we were trying to test is a very specific question about how men and women can or cannot sleep through different types of sounds.'
ABOUT CIRCIDIAN RHYTHMS
Our internal circadian rhythms, or circadian clock, is responsible for waking our bodies up in the morning and ensuring they get a good night's rest.
In a healthy person, cortisol levels peak at around 8am, which wakes us up (in theory), and drop to their lowest at 3am the next day, before rising back to its peak five hours later.
Ideally, this 8am peak will be triggered by exposure to sunlight, if not an alarm. When it does, the adrenal glands and brain will start pumping adrenaline.
By mid-morning, the cortisol levels start dropping, while the adrenaline (for energy) and serotonin (a mood stabilizer) keep pumping.
At midday, metabolism and core body temperature ramp up, getting us hungry and ready to eat.
After noon, cortisol levels start their steady decline. Metabolism slows down and tiredness sets in.
Gradually the serotonin turns into melatonin, which induces sleepiness.
Our blood sugar levels decrease, and at 3am, when we are in the middle of our sleep, cortisol levels hit a 24-hour low.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain is facing a measles epidemic because parents no longer believe in science
Britain is facing a measles epidemic because parents no longer believe in science

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Britain is facing a measles epidemic because parents no longer believe in science

Sharp conversational swerves: every parent is adept at these. One minute you're enjoying an amiable chat with another parent at the school gates, the next you're hurtling towards some contentious topic at high speed. Unless you know the other person well, you don't want to be going anywhere near smartphone use right now (it's extraordinary how ferociously parents will defend their own cowardice around excessive phone usage, particularly in a post- Adolescence era). Consequently, books and reading have also become hot-button topics and up there with sugar, which is absurd. But ever since Covid, the real social powder keg has, of course, been childhood vaccines. A couple of months ago, I was too late with my swerve, and the unthinkable happened: Andrew Wakefield's name was mentioned. There it sat, a fizzing grenade between us, while this (intelligent) mother of two explained to me that she didn't believe in the concept of herd immunity and had refused the MMR vaccine for both of her children – you know, on account of the autism link. As a journalist who was taught to triple-check every fact – and then check it again – I have a very low patience threshold when it comes to the casual lobbing of inaccuracies. I may even have held up a professorial index as I explained what I'm sure this woman already knew: that Wakefield's infamous 1998 paper was found to be based on scientific misconduct, with the studies fraudulent and the data misrepresented. That as a result, it was retracted. That in terms of scientific record, in terms of science, Wakefield's 'findings' do not exist. At this point, the woman shrugged, crossed her arms, and said something that has stayed with me: 'Yeah, well, what he wrote confirmed everything I've always felt in my gut to be true.' I thought about the ramifications of that statement yesterday, as I read about the child who tragically died at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool last week, after having contracted measles. This is the second child to have succumbed to an acute measles infection in Britain this decade. A shocking statistic when you consider that this is an entirely preventable disease and that just eight years ago, the UK had achieved measles elimination status. Now, while we don't know the age, gender or general health of the child, we do know that they were one of 17 youngsters treated at the hospital in recent weeks after becoming severely unwell with measles. We know from an Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust spokesman that the hospital is extremely concerned by an 'increasing number of children contracting measles', and we know from campaigns the NHS has been forced to launch in recent years that uptake of all childhood immunisations has seen a consistent decline, with the MMR vaccine uptake in particular now at its lowest level since the early 2010s. If only this were just a Covid hangover. If only the rest of the drop in uptake could be blamed on vaccine hesitancy in migrant communities, which is undoubtedly also a factor. Even the scourge of misinformation could (and should) be vigorously fought against in various ways – although it's depressing that adults are now statistically more inclined to fall for it than youngsters (as schools now teach children how to spot disinformation). But what we're witnessing is, I suspect, something far harder to fight, and that's the triumph of feeling over fact. Feelings are no longer simply used to interpret inner sensations. Today, they validate our beliefs – even if those beliefs came from TikTok. Have a look at the online message boards and the comments section of any article relating to the MMR and you'll see the same kind of language used by that mother of two. It doesn't matter what the doctors and scientists say, or what the potential perils are: what these people 'feel to be true' trumps any factual evidence offered up. Why do you think celebrities have such influence on this subject? Because they feel harder than anyone else. They 'speak feelings' better too. Paediatric hospitals the world over must have wept when vaccine-cautious US actress Jenny McCarthy said: 'Ask 99.9 per cent of parents who have children with autism if we'd rather have the measles versus autism – we'd sign up for the measles.' Because those are the options? It also doesn't seem to matter that those who are refusing to vaccinate their children have largely benefited from herd immunity themselves. In fact, ironically, I think it may make them more dangerous, since they have never experienced or witnessed the ravages of these diseases first-hand. I would never wish either of those things on anyone, so how does one impress the seriousness of the situation on a privileged but oblivious demographic?

Revealed: The bombshell new drug that could delay the menopause for years - or even eliminate it forever... but are you willing to put up with these side effects?
Revealed: The bombshell new drug that could delay the menopause for years - or even eliminate it forever... but are you willing to put up with these side effects?

Daily Mail​

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Revealed: The bombshell new drug that could delay the menopause for years - or even eliminate it forever... but are you willing to put up with these side effects?

Whether women want it or not, they have little choice but to go through the menopause. Or do they? What if the menopause was something that could be delayed – or even eliminated altogether? That's what a handful of scientists believe could become a reality, with research teams worldwide exploring the various ways to achieve this. Menopause occurs around midlife, when the ovaries run out of functioning eggs – this leads to a natural decline in oestrogen levels, which starts a few years before the menopause during the perimenopausal period.

Nicotine pouch poisonings in children surged by 763% in recent years
Nicotine pouch poisonings in children surged by 763% in recent years

The Independent

time2 hours ago

  • The Independent

Nicotine pouch poisonings in children surged by 763% in recent years

A new study found over 134,000 nicotine poisonings among children younger than six were reported to poison centers in a study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics from 2010 to 2023. Most of the poisoned children were under two years old, with nearly all incidents occurring at home. While overall nicotine poisoning rates decreased due to a reduction in liquid nicotine incidents, poisonings from nicotine pouches surged by approximately 763 percent between 2020 and 2023. Nicotine pouch ingestions were more likely to result in serious medical outcomes or hospital admissions compared to other nicotine products. Although most poisonings had minor or no effects, there were 39 cases with major effects, such as trouble breathing and seizures, and two deaths attributed to liquid nicotine.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store