Here's how many hours we spend using our phones on the toilet every year — and why doctors warn against it
A new study has revealed the total number of hours Americans spend using their phones on the toilet every year — and it's shocking.
4 Americans can't put their phones down — not even when the toilet seat is down.
Yakobchuk Olena – stock.adobe.com
A team from QS Supplies — a bathroom supplies company — surveyed 500 Americans about their bathroom habits.
According to the study, Americans spend 49 hours using their phone on the commode — just over two full days a year down the drain.
And what are people doing on their phones while sitting on the throne?
They're scrolling on social media (66%), watching videos (40%), responding to texts and DMs (37%), reading the news (36%), sending emails (36%), playing games (29%), shopping online (14%), completing work-related tasks (9%) and talking on the phone (8%).
But most disturbingly, a strange 2% of people said they answer video calls from the John.
And to no one's surprise, Gen Z is the worst culprit of this dirty habit.
The generation born between 1997 and 2012 admitted to spending an average of 54 hours doomscrolling while on the toilet.
This habit has become more than just something to help them pass…time.
4 According to the study, Americans spend 49 hours using their phone on the commode — just over two full days a year down the drain.
Urupong – stock.adobe.com
In fact, over 6 in 10 people (61%) admit to staying on the toilet longer to finish something on their phone.
Others — over in 2 in 5 (42%) — even lock themselves away in the loo just to get a break from others.
They're trying to get sh-t done and hide when they get pissy.
And for 51% of Americans — they just want to enjoy some alone time.
4 Gen Z admitted to spending an average of 54 hours doomscrolling while on the toilet.
Helga P-A. – stock.adobe.com
Unfortunately, this habit is dirtier than most might expect, especially because only 1 in 4 people clean their phones after using them in the bathroom.
Baby Boomers are the least likely ones to wipe down their phones after coming off the toilet.
Doctors warn that using a dirty phone can cause you to develop colds, flu, and gastrointestinal and stomach illnesses.
But even if you do clean your cell after you wash your hands, using your phone in the bathroom could still lead to health issues.
4 In fact, over 6 in 10 people (61%) admit to staying on the toilet longer just to finish something on their phone.
JYPIX – stock.adobe.com
Experts have warned that sitting on the toilet with your phone could cause 'TikTok tush.'
Hemorrhoids are swollen veins in the anus and rectum that can lead to pain, itching and bleeding.
Frequently, they form due to too much straining during a bowel movement, but just kicking back on the can for too long — like when you're texting or on social media — can hurt you too.
If you want to prevent them, one gastroenterologist insists you'll need to give your phone a rest when going number two — no ifs, ands, or uncomfortable butts about it.
And his '10-15' rule may be a huge help in keeping your bum healthy come toilet time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
8 hours ago
- Business Insider
'Fawning' is Gen Z's new fight-or-flight response
Meg Josephson grew up as a people-pleaser. Raised in a home she describes as volatile, she remembers monitoring her father's reactions, desperately trying to smooth tensions over. "Being a perfectionist and being kind of always on was very protective for me," Josephson told Business Insider. "It was the one thing in my control to kind of keep my dad's moods at bay." Once she left home, however, she realized that people-pleasing was her default response, even when no one was actually mad at her. It was when she started going to therapy herself that she learned how much she relied on the fawn response to fear — placating instead of entering fight, flight, or freeze. Healing from her fawning inspired her to become a therapist. Now, she said, many of her Gen Z clients and social media followers seem to especially struggle with people-pleasing. "Social media and digital communication have played a huge, huge, huge role in the Gen Z fawn response," Josephson said. Online life magnifies rejection and makes it so much easier to seek validation, meaning Gen Zers with people-pleasing tendencies can get stuck in a never-ending, approval-hunting loop, she said. Josephson titled her upcoming book " Are You Mad at Me?", out August 5, because she hears it so often in everyday conversations. Luckily, being a people-pleaser isn't a fixed trait, she said. Even Gen Zers can shed that identity — if they're willing to let it go. Warpspeed rejection The classic precursor for people-pleasing is if you were If being raised in a dysfunctional environment s or by emotionally immature parents. contributes to people-pleasing behavior, That wouldn't make Gen Zers are not a unique generation. Reactive or abusive parents have existed forever. Still, it's the online world Gen Zers grew up in that primes them to feel abandoned more often, triggering a need for reassurance that their relationships are stable. "There are so many ways to connect now, and because of that, there are so many ways to feel forgotten," Josephson said. While past generations were limited to in-person interactions, letters, or phone calls, Gen Zers can feel validated — or rejected by — so much more. Their best friend not "liking" their Instagram photo. A crush leaving their DM on read. A group of their friends posting a Snapchat without them. This can lead them to fawning, which Josephson considers "almost a more modernized threat response" compared to fight or flight. An unanswered text may not be frightening enough to trigger physically running away, but it can pressure someone to send more clarifying texts in the frantic hope that their friend isn't upset with them. The fawn response, at its core, is "I need this external validation to know that I'm safe," she said. To complicate matters even more, online life is both rife with posts about how people should behave and opportunities to be misunderstood. "We don't hold a lot of room for nuance because we want digestible, short, snappy information," Josephson said. She said one of the first steps to healing is realizing that we're all inundated with high expectations, heightening "this ridiculous standard that we hold ourselves to internally." An endless supply of reassurance Perpetual people-pleasers might fall into a common trap: rampant reassurance-seeking. It can look like texting "Are you mad at me?" to a friend or asking your partner if they're still into the relationship. Validation-seeking can become a cycle because "we're getting this relief for a split second," Josephson said. But done in excess, it can strain relationships, she said. Disorders like relationship OCD, for example, can manifest as constantly needing positive feedback from a romantic partner — an ultimately unsustainable dynamic. Some people ask the group chats to weigh in on their Hinge date, post about their friends in anonymous forums, or even consult ChatGPT. Still, Josephson said that too much outsourcing is a bad idea. AI, in particular, is a dangerous crutch. ChatGPT "does have the intelligence to validate, but because it's not a real relationship with a real person, there's a limitation," Josephson said. The chatbot may empathetically respond with all the reasons your friend probably isn't mad at you, but probably won't tell you that you're asking that question way too often. There are over 140 million TikTok posts about being a people-pleaser. While social media posts can help identify and relate to a problem, they can also nudge people into viewing their people-pleasing as a permanent personality trait. Josephson said that she works with clients to move away from labels that can keep them stuck. "It's not an identity, but rather it's a self-protective pattern," she said. "It's this younger part of you that has learned to be on high alert to manage people's moods as a way to protect you, but that doesn't mean you always need protecting now." One of the best starting points is pausing — putting the phone down or taking a beat in the middle of a heated conversation. A moment of mindfulness, "even if it's just for 10 seconds," can help you acknowledge the fear without immediately reacting to it, Josephson said. "If you're oversharing because you want to feel understood, pause. What do you actually want to say, versus what's coming from a place of fawning?" Done consistently, this practice becomes the stepping stone for other habits, like tolerating discomfort in a conflict or setting boundaries. You might still end that pause in the same place — worrying that you've unknowingly angered someone. The difference is in what you'll do next.
Hamilton Spectator
2 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Emancipation Day talk to highlight Haldimand's Black history
Free on Friday? Heritage Haldimand invites the public to an Emancipation Day gathering that explores Haldimand County's ties to the Underground Railroad. Emancipation Day refers to the declaration of the end of slavery in the British Empire in 1834. In the United States, some African-Americans fleeing slavery took refuge in Canfield, a hamlet in Haldimand where Black and European settlers lived harmoniously, according to local historian Sylvia Weaver. 'Canfield was a special place,' Weaver told The Spectator in an earlier interview. She described how Black, Scottish and Irish inhabitants 'worked side by side' to clear the land. 'They lived together, went to school together, went to church together,' Weaver said. 'They were all equal and they got along.' The story of one of Ontario's oldest Black settlements is told in ' Canfield Roots, ' a documentary by Haldimand filmmaker Graeme Bachiu. Friday's free Emancipation Day event runs from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Canfield Community Hall at 50 Talbot Rd. The centrepiece of the program is a talk by historian Rochelle Bush, a descendant of Samuel Cooper, the first Black settler to make Haldimand his new home. Bush will tell stories of the Cooper and Street families, some of whom are buried in a historic cemetery in Canfield for Haldimand's earliest Black settlers. In an earlier interview, Bush said the African-Americans who came north to Canfield were authors of their own liberation and should be referred to as 'freedom seekers' rather than runaway or escaped slaves. 'They were self-emancipated (and) found their way to British soil, where they could find freedom,' Bush said. Haldimand's fourth annual Emancipation Day celebration 'serves as an opportunity to reflect on the history of slavery in Canada, acknowledge the contributions of Black Canadians and address ongoing systemic anti-Black racism,' the county said in a press release. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Atlantic
The Birth of the Attention Economy
This is an edition of Time-Travel Thursdays, a journey through The Atlantic 's archives to contextualize the present. Sign up here. Early in the Civil War, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. announced in The Atlantic that the necessities of life had been reduced to two things: bread and the newspaper. Trying to keep up with what Holmes called the 'excitements of the time,' civilians lived their days newspaper to newspaper, hanging on the latest reports. Reading anything else felt beside the point. The newspaper was an inescapable force, Holmes wrote; it ruled by 'divine right of its telegraphic dispatches.' Holmes didn't think he was describing some permanent modern condition—information dependency as a way of life. The newspaper's reign would end with the war, he thought. And when it did, he and others could return to more high-minded literary pursuits—such as the book by an 'illustrious author' that he'd put down when hostilities broke out. Nearly 40 years after Holmes wrote those words, newspapers were still on the march. Writing in 1900, Arthur Reed Kimball warned in The Atlantic of an ' Invasion of Journalism,' as newspapers' volume and influence grew only more intense. Their readers' intellect, Kimball argued, had been diminished. Coarse language was corrupting speech and writing, and miscellaneous news was making miscellaneous minds. The newspaper-ification of the American mind was complete. The rise of the cheap, daily newspaper in the 19th century created the first true attention economy—an endless churn of spectacle and sensation that remade how Americans engaged with the world. Although bound by the physical limits of print, early newspaper readers' habits were our habits: People craved novelty, skimmed for the latest, let their attention dart from story to story. And with the onset of this new way of being came its first critics. In our current moment, when readers need to be persuaded to read an article before they post about it online, 19th-century harrumphs over the risks of newspaper reading seem quaint. Each new technology since the newspaper—film, radio, television, computers, the internet, search engines, social media, artificial intelligence—has sparked the same anxieties about how our minds and souls will be changed. Mostly, we've endured. But these anxieties have always hinted at the possibility that one day, we'll reach the endgame—the point at which words and the work of the mind will have become redundant. Worries over journalism's invasive qualities are as old as the modern daily newspaper. In New York, where the American variant first took shape in the 1830s, enterprising editors found a formula for success; they covered fires, murders, swindles, scandals, steamboat explosions, and other acts in the city's daily circus. As James Gordon Bennett Sr., the editor of the New York Herald and the great pioneer of the cheap daily, said, the mission was 'to startle or amuse.' Small in size and packed with tiny type, the papers themselves didn't look particularly amusing, but the newsboys selling them in the street were startling enough. Even if you didn't buy a paper, a boy in rags was going to yell its contents at you. These cheap newspapers had relatively modest urban circulations, but they suggested a new mode of living, an acceleration of time rooted in an expectation of constant novelty. Henry David Thoreau and other contrarians saw the implications and counseled the careful conservation of attention. 'We should treat our minds,' Thoreau wrote in an essay posthumously published in The Atlantic, 'that is, ourselves, as innocent and ingenuous children, whose guardians we are, and be careful what objects and what subjects we thrust on their attention.' This included newspapers. 'Read not the Times,' he urged. 'Read the Eternities.' But the problem was only getting worse. The Eternities were steadily losing ground to the Times—and to the Posts, the Standards, the Gazettes, the Worlds, and the Examiners. In the last third of the 19th century, the volume of printed publications grew exponentially. Even as more 'serious' newspapers such as the New-York Tribune entered the marketplace, the cheap daily continued to sell thousands of copies each day. Newspapers, aided by faster methods of typesetting and by cheaper printing, became twice-daily behemoths, with Sunday editions that could be biblical in length. A British observer marveled at the turn of the century that Americans, 'the busiest people in the world,' had so much time to read each day. American commentators of high and furrowed brow worried less that newspapers were being left unread and more that they were actually being devoured. The evidence was everywhere—in snappier sermons on Sundays, in direct and terse orations at colleges, in colloquial expressions in everyday usage, in the declining influence of certain journals and magazines (including The Atlantic). If I may apply what Kimball deplored as 'newspaper directness,' people seemed to be getting dumber. Those who were reared on slop and swill wanted ever more slop and swill—and the newspapers were all too ready to administer twice-daily feedings. Writing in The Atlantic in 1891 on the subject of ' Journalism and Literature,' William James Stillman saw a broad and 'devastating influence of the daily paper' on Americans' 'mental development.' No less grave were the political implications of a populace marinating in half-truths, seeking the general confirmation of what it already believed. In such a market, journalists and their papers had an incentive to perpetuate falsehoods. Was all of this hand-wringing a little too much? Has not one generation predicted the doom of the next with each successive innovation? Socrates warned that writing would weaken thought and give only the appearance of wisdom. Eighteenth-century novels occasioned panic as critics worried that their readers would waste their days on vulgar fictions. And as for newspapers, didn't Ernest Hemingway famously take 'newspaper directness' and make it the basis for perhaps the most influential literary style of the 20th century? Each innovation, even those that risk dimming our broader mental capacity, can stimulate innovations of its own. But at the risk of sounding like those 19th-century critics, this time really does seem different. When machines can so agreeably perform all of our intellectual labors and even fulfill our emotional needs, we should wonder what will become of our minds. No one has to spend much time imagining what we might like to read or pretend to read; algorithms already know. Chatbots, meanwhile, can as readily make our emails sound like Hemingway as they can instruct us on how to perform devil worship and self-mutilation. Thoreau may have never divined the possibility of artificial intelligence, but he did fear minds smoothed out by triviality and ease. He imagined the intellect as a road being paved over—' macadamized,' in 19th-century parlance—'its foundation broken into fragments for the wheels of travel to roll over.' 'If I am to be a thoroughfare,' Thoreau wrote, 'I prefer that it be of the mountain-brooks, the Parnassian streams, and not the town-sewers.'
