logo
The best exercises to do if you want a good night's sleep

The best exercises to do if you want a good night's sleep

Telegraph2 days ago

Sleep comes easily to me: in meetings, while filling out online forms, at the ballet, when anyone explains anything connected with personal finance. However, once in bed, a lot of this natural gift leaves me. You will often find me pointlessly lively between 3am and 4am, having woken up half-bonkers with worries about anything from roof repairs to our purpose on earth.
One thing that has always helped is my sessions lifting weights in the gym. There is something uniquely exhausting about strength training and, at 61, I now do something taxing with my muscles at least three times a week. These are the nights when my wake-ups are less disturbing and finding the door that leads back to dreamland is easier.
And now it seems that science is on my side. Newly published analysis carried out in Mahidol University, Bangkok, found that among older people (the over-60s) with insomnia, strength training – lifting, pushing and pulling – is superior to aerobic work as a means of improving slumber.
One theory behind this is that tensing and relaxing our muscles may resemble a classic and very effective late-night sleep technique.
Why is strength training so helpful for sleeplessness?
Prof Kevin Morgan of the Loughborough University Clinical Sleep Research Unit has been working on sleep for decades. He says progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) – the scrunching and relaxing of muscle groups across the body, is much like the action we perform while resistance training.
The technique involves clenching, holding and unclenching muscle groups. Recommended by the NHS, among others, the process can start at the feet, move up to the calves and culminate at the head, for example, leaving us loose and open to sleep. It was developed in the US at the start of last century and is now common practice as a remedy for insomnia.
Prof Morgan speculates that weight training may mimic the effect of PMR (each exertion is a brief hold, tense and release) and suggests that if you wanted to maximise this, it may be worth working the larger muscle groups. Once this is completed, he says, 'bigger muscles may be more relaxed than they otherwise would be'.
Why timing is so important
If you want to maximise the power of your resistance training as a sleep aid, it's worth thinking carefully about timing your sessions in a regular slot every day. Because exercise is such a powerful body-clock leader, picking a time and sticking to it is more important than when you do it. Sleep scientists have discovered that muscles contain their own circadian clocks and that exercise, along with light and food, is one of the ways our bodies orient themselves in time.
Prof Morgan says, if you want better sleep, 'do exercise at a regular time and that will provide your circadian rhythm (your internal alarm clock) with a timing cue, so when you're lying in bed your body now knows it's night-time.' A study carried out by Dalian University, China, found movement can be a truly effective way of establishing healthy sleep patterns. 'Exercise can regulate the body's internal rhythms to a certain extent, making it possible to become a non-drug intervention for preventing and treating circadian rhythm disorders.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Coronation Street siblings look unrecognisable almost two decades on from ITV soap exit
Coronation Street siblings look unrecognisable almost two decades on from ITV soap exit

The Sun

time31 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Coronation Street siblings look unrecognisable almost two decades on from ITV soap exit

CORONATION Street fans have been left stunned after spotting two former child stars looking totally unrecognisable. The twin sisters were last seen in Weatherfield 17 years ago - but do you recognise them? 5 5 Twin sisters, Emily and Amy Walton, shared the role of Bethany Platt for seven years from 2000 to 2007 on Coronation Street. The long-standing character first appeared on the cobbles back in 2000 and is the daughter of Sarah Platt (Tina O'Brien). They were involved in some major dramatic storylines from being kidnapped by her paternal grandmother Brenda Fearns (Julia Deakin), to taking an ecstasy pill that her uncle had stashed inside of her doll and ended up hospitalised. However, Bethany left the cobbles in 2007 when Sarah decided to move to Italy. Since then, the twins have moved away from the acting and showbiz world. They competed in the British Trampoline finals in 2016, with Amy securing a place in Great Britain's team the European Championships the following year. Emily shared a snap with her sister on Instagram back in January - and the pair look worlds away from their Coronation Street days. They both beamed at the camera as they holidayed in Thailand. She captioned the snap: "The last of Thailand," alongside a yellow heart emoji. Meanwhile, when Bethany Platt returned in 2015, Lucy Fallon took over the role. Inside Coronation Street star Lucy Fallon's £300 per night holiday at luxury getaway She has brought drama and awareness through major storylines, including being groomed by Nathan Curtis (Christopher Harper) and getting a stoma bag through botched surgery. The 29-year-old returned to Corrie in December 2023 after having previously left in 2019 to go on maternity leave after welcoming her first child, Sonny, in early 2023. The actress then revealed she was leaving again shortly after she announced she was pregnant with her second child, who she gave birth to in January with partner Ryan Ledson. Despite exiting twice, the door has always being left open for her to return - but Lucy has now hinted she's quit for good. Soap characters who've been recast Soap operas are staple viewing for many people, but even some of the most famous characters have been played by different actors. Here are some examples from over the years. Coronation Street Tracy Barlow: Kate Ford took on the role of Corrie legend Tracy Barlow in 2002. Before Kate, three other actresses had played Tracy - most notably Dawn Acton from 1988 to 1999. Nick Tilsley: Ben Price has been playing Gail's oldest child in 2009, but the former Footballers' Wives star is the third actor to take on the part. Sarah Platt: Although Tina O'Brien debuted as Sarah Platt in 1999, she is the third actress who has played the iconic role of Sarah Platt. David Platt: Completing the line-up of Gail's children, David was initially played by Thomas Ormson for a decade before Jack P. Shepherd took over. Daniel Osbourne: For almost a decade, the role of Ken Barlow's son Daniel has been portrayed by actor Rob Mallard. Before Rob joined, two other actors had previously played Daniel. Bethany Platt: Fans know Lucy Fallon as Bethany nowadays but before her, three other actresses had stepped into the character's shoes. Kirk Sutherland: Before Andy Whyment took on the role of Kirk, he played by an uncredited actor in his very first appearance. Todd Grimshaw: Gareth Pierce stepped into the role of Todd back in 2020, becoming the second performer to play this part. Summer Spellman: Harriet Bibby became the second actress to play Summer, taking over the role from Matilda Freeman in 2020. Ryan Connor: Ryan Prescott currently plays the long-running character, but Ben Thompson and Sol Heras had earlier portrayed the role. EastEnders Martin Fowler: Although Martin was the first baby born on-screen in EastEnders, he hasn't always been played by the same person. His current portrayer, James Bye, is the third actor to star as the character. Peter Beale: Seven actors have portrayed Ian Beale's elder son, with the current actor, Thomas Law, in his second stint as the character. Ben Mitchell: Ben has been played by a total of six actors - with Max Bowden bowing out of the role in March 2024. Bobby Beale: Before Clay Milner Russell, Ian's younger son had been played by four other actors. Freddie Slater: Bobby's best mate, Freddie Slater, had been previously played by twins Alex and Tom Kilby before Bobby Brazier took over in 2022. Chelsea Fox: Former Coronation Street actress Zaraah Abrahams took over the role of Chelsea in 2020. The character had been first played by Tiana Benjamin from 2006 to 2010. Lauren Branning: Jacqueline Jossa took on the role of Lauren in 2010, succeeding Madeline Duggan who'd played her from 2006 to 2010. Johnny Carter: Johnny has been played by three actors since debuting in 2013 - most recently, Charlie Suff has taken on the role. The soap star has signed up to talent agent Off Limits, which help TV stars and influencer clients land brand deals, which goes against ITV's strict rules for their cast. While Coronation Street does allow product placement on the show, like with the Co-op and Costa Coffee, the cast is generally restricted from doing their own brand deals. This has caused some tension, with actors expressing frustration at being able to promote products on the show but not off-screen. The Sun have reached out to Lucy's rep for comment. A slew of mid-salary stars is furious that ITV bosses have agreed to the money-spinning deal to have the high street giants' shopfronts and products on-screen on the expanded new set. But at the same time, cast members are banned from taking ad work promoting products away from the soap that could massively boost their earnings. ITV rules state that the stars are only allowed to take part in other shows like I'm A Celebrity and Dancing on Ice and do personal appearances like shop openings. It comes after Jack P Shepherd is set to be bombarded with big money deals after winning Celebrity Big Brother. But any plans to cash in by signing up to star in television adverts will be blocked by Coronation Street bosses. A TV insider said: "It used to be a lot more strict, but these days ITV soap stars are allowed certain partnerships that are permitted on social media. "The line is drawn at advertising more generally - and absolutely no TV adverts." 5 5 5

Imane Khelif scandal brings everlasting shame on the IOC
Imane Khelif scandal brings everlasting shame on the IOC

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Imane Khelif scandal brings everlasting shame on the IOC

It felt, then as now, like a huge exercise in misdirection. Yes, the IBA had questions to answer over its ethics and finances. But the core element of its case – that women's sport should only be for those with XX chromosomes, that male advantage was immutable – was sound. And now we see its argument that it disqualified Khelif from the 2023 world championships for being XY – a verdict, crucially, against which the athlete did not appeal – substantiated in writing, with a report carrying the letterhead of Dr Lal Path Labs in New Delhi summarising the genetic testing in two telling words: 'abnormal' and 'male'. I spent much of Monday pursuing the IOC, asking firstly for a response to the document and secondly for a sign of whether it would be apologising to the women denied Olympic medals. Eventually, on Tuesday morning, the following word salad arrived from Lausanne: 'The IOC has always made it clear that eligibility criteria are the responsibility of the respective international federation. The factors that matter to performance are unique to each sport, discipline and/or event. We await the full details on how sex testing will be implemented in a safe, fair and legally enforceable way.' This statement, somehow managing to avoid either question posed, is risible in myriad ways. For a start, the attempt to pass the buck to the federations is directly contradicted by the IOC's actions at the Paris Games. It took over running Olympic boxing from the IBA, establishing the so-called 'Paris Boxing Unit' and applying their own fatuous logic that Khelif and Taiwan's Lin Yu-ting, who had also failed tests, could compete because of the 'F' in their passports. As for their comment about rules being different depending on the sport? Clearly, they still believe men can be women in certain circumstances. In boxing, though, there was only one by which they needed to abide: to ensure women would not be smashed in the head by biological males. And it failed to uphold even that most basic duty of care. It is a monumental dereliction, to which the only natural response is anger. The IOC has caused havoc with its ridiculous 2021 framework on 'fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination', stating that 'athletes should be allowed to compete in the category that best aligns with the self-determined gender identity'. In 2024, it decided to test this fallacy in boxing, the most lethal Olympic sport. Except boxers do not compete with their feelings, but with their fists. In its desperation to advertise supposedly progressive credentials, it placed women in mortal danger. Could there be a greater betrayal? Those who cheered this on in Paris, who painted anybody doubting Khelif's claims to be a woman as a bigot, should take some time to reflect. And that includes many journalists. On Sky Sports News on Friday, an Olympics reporter, reacting to news that World Boxing would compel Khelif to undergo further sex testing to compete in the female category again, said flatly: 'There were no tests. There were no test results.' And yet there were. We knew of their existence in Paris nine months ago, and now we have seen them with our own eyes. In a curious way, there is some comfort in this. When people accuse anybody disagreeing with them on this subject of 'hate', it is a sure sign that they have lost the plot. And those insisting that Khelif's mental health matters more than the physical wellbeing of women have emphatically lost any moral argument. Think of it this way: in men's sport, people devote inordinate amounts of time to railing against the tiniest example of unfairness, to decrying the entire VAR system if Erling Haaland's toe happens to be offside. How can the same judges make their peace with women being denied the right to safety, the most basic fairness of all? 'Non è giusto', Carini kept saying to her corner in Paris after the Khelif bout, weeping that she had never been punched so hard in her life. 'It's not fair.' Let that plaintive cry stand as a monument to the IOC's everlasting shame.

Couples on State Pension given £1,600 warning over retirement risk
Couples on State Pension given £1,600 warning over retirement risk

Daily Mirror

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Couples on State Pension given £1,600 warning over retirement risk

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) has put the annual cost of a comfortable retirement for a couple at £60,600 The cost of a comfortable retirement for a couple has rocketed to an astonishing £60,600 a year. This post-tax income number has gone up by £1,600 from the previous year, reveals new research by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA). For a more modest lifestyle after retirement, couples now face an annual post-tax increase of £800, with costs hitting £43,900. Conversely, those aiming for just the basics in later life will find themselves spending £800 less, as figures drop to £21,600 per annum for couples. ‌ In an effort to set clear expectations for retirement spending, the PLSA's Retirement Living Standards (RLS) were formed together with Loughborough University's Centre for Research in Social Policy, based on thorough conversations with Britons about their anticipated retirement lifestyles, reports the Express. ‌ Through this study, they've laid out their guidelines for living comfortably after work ends: Comfortable Standard of Living Annual income: £60,600 (couple) Greater financial freedom Includes regular overseas holidays, generous home improvements, and extensive social/leisure activities Moderate Standard of Living Annual income: £43,900 (couple) More financial security and flexibility Includes a car, a few holidays a year, and more frequent leisure activities ‌ Minimum Standard of Living Annual income: £21,600 (couple) Covers basic needs with some leftover for occasional treats Includes a week-long UK holiday, dining out once a month No budget for a car; relies on public transport Zoe Alexander, PLSA's Director of Policy and Advocacy, noted: "We're not just seeing changes in costs, we're seeing changes in how retirees live." ‌ She added: "Retirement isn't a one-size-fits-all experience. The Standards recognise that retirees can share costs, often with a partner, and that can make a huge difference to affordability in later life." The latest research underscores the critical role of the State Pension, particularly for those on the minimum level. By 2025/26, a couple receiving the full new State Pension, which amounts to £11,973 per person or £23,946 combined, would be able to cover the costs associated with the minimum standard of living. ‌ The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) is urging people to utilise its findings as a guide for future planning, adapting the information to fit personal lifestyles and mixing elements from various living standards. Notably, the data indicates that to achieve a comfortable joint annual income after tax of £60,600, supplementing the State Pension, each partner in a couple would need a private pension pot ranging between £300,000 and £460,000 to purchase an annuity – a lifetime income. For a moderate lifestyle in retirement, it's estimated that each individual would require a private pension savings of £165,000 to £250,000 to secure an annuity that would top up their State Pension. ‌ Professor Matt Padley, Co-director of the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, commented: "Our research on what the public agree is needed in retirement at these three different levels continues to track changes in expectations, shaped by the broader economic, social and political context." He also noted: "The consequences of the cost-of-living challenges over the past few years are still being felt, and we've seen some subtle changes in public consensus about minimum living standards in retirement, resulting in a small fall in the expenditure needed to reach this standard." Zoe Alexander stated: "For many, retirement is about maintaining the life they already have, not living more extravagantly or cutting back to the bare essentials. The Standards are designed to help people picture that future and plan in a way that works for them." ‌ Tom Selby, AJ Bell's Director of Public Policy, noted that the required size of private pension pots "might feel intimidating". He advised: "The key is to focus on saving as much as you can afford from as early as possible, taking advantage of incentives like employer contributions, tax relief and tax-free investment growth." At present, the minimum pension contributions are 8% of incomes; however, this falls short of the necessary amount, he warned. "The big danger here is that, without a scaling up of minimum contributions, millions of people will sleepwalk into a retirement shock and be forced to choose between working longer or living on less money in their later years," he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store