The Best Time of Day to Exercise Based on Your Personality Type
Key Points
The Big Five Personality traits include openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Personality types may influence the time of day a person prefers to exercise.
Knowing your personality and preferences can boost workout consistency and results.
If you've ever wondered why some people jump out of bed for a 6 a.m. spin class while others thrive on late-night strength training, it might not just be about discipline or personal preference. Your personality type could influence when you're most motivated to exercise and what helps you stay consistent.
There's no one-size-fits-all time to work out based on the Big Five personality traits—openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. But understanding your personality can help you align your exercise routine with your natural tendencies, making it easier to enjoy exercise, stay consistent and meet your fitness goals. We asked two mental health experts who specialize in sport and performance psychology to break it down.
Openness to Experience
People who score high in openness tend to be curious, imaginative and eager to explore new things. They're often drawn to variety, including in their workouts.
'It seems logical to me that people who have higher scores on openness would have a higher correlation with exercise spontaneity,' says Amy O'Hana, Ph.D., a mental health expert specializing in sport and performance psychology at the University of Western States. She suggests these folks may enjoy switching between morning and evening workouts or trying out new environments and formats.
That flexibility can be a strength, but it can also backfire if access to local classes is limited. 'One challenge is that the availability of these types of activities may conflict with the time of day exercise is preferred,' says Teresa Behrend Fletcher, Ph.D., program director of sport and human performance at Adler University. This is especially true for people living in places with limited options or resources.
Best time to work out: Any time that keeps things fresh. Rotate between, for example, early-morning yoga, lunchtime walks and evening dance classes to stay engaged.
Conscientiousness
Highly conscientious people are organized, structured and goal-driven, making them great at sticking to workout routines.
'While there's no data linking conscientiousness to a preferred time of day for exercise, people who score high in this trait tend to be highly goal-focused and value routine. Because of that, they're more likely to plan ahead to ensure they stick to their exercise schedule if it's aligned with a personal goal,' says O'Hana. Translation? As long as a conscientious person puts time for exercise on their calendar, it's happening.
Although highly conscientious people will stick to their workouts regardless of the time, morning sessions may be appealing since they offer a sense of accomplishment at the start of the day. 'I need to get my exercise done early in the day or I lose motivation and energy to work out as the day passes,' Fletcher says. 'Checking it off early sets a positive tone and promotes focus for the rest of the day.'
Best time to work out: Early morning or midmorning, when energy is high and the day is still under your control.
Extraversion
Extraverts tend to be outgoing, energetic and fueled by social interaction. For them, the best time to exercise is whenever the gym is buzzing or classes are in full swing.
'Extraverts regain energy from the outside world,' says O'Hana. 'They're drawn to times when they can be around others. That could mean a group class after work or a hike with friends on the weekend.'
But coordinating those preferences can be tricky, since the challenge is matching peak energy with group activity schedules. 'This can be a challenge for anyone not working a standard 9 to 5 day, such as shift workers. It can be hard to find a class or group at a time that fits into their unique schedules,' says Fletcher.
Best time to work out: Late afternoon or early evening, when the social energy of a class or crowded gym is at its peak.
Agreeableness
People high in agreeableness are cooperative, empathetic and value harmony—often finding motivation to exercise by helping others.
'If I were working clinically with a client who scored high on agreeableness, I would approach exercise planning through the lens of relational motivation and a sense of greater purpose,' says O'Hana. For example, a parent might feel guilty about taking time to work out. But reframing it as a way to model healthy behavior or boost energy for their kids can be very effective, she says.
Because agreeable people often put others first, their workout times may hinge on other people's schedules. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it can create challenges if it leads to burnout or neglecting personal needs.
Best time to work out: Whenever it fits with family or group schedules. Just make sure it's sustainable.
Neuroticism
Neuroticism is linked to emotional sensitivity, anxiety and mood swings. For individuals prone to neuroticism, exercise plays a key role in emotional regulation and stress relief. In fact, a recent study found that people who scored high on neuroticism benefited the most from exercise compared to other personality types. Unfortunately, they may also struggle the most with consistency.
'For individuals who score high in neuroticism, regular exercise is essential,' says O'Hana. 'Regardless of whether they are participating in mental health treatment, I believe exercise is one of the most effective tools for emotional regulation.' Morning exercise can help you feel grounded and emotionally steady throughout the day, she says.
But it's not all about mornings. 'Some people have better energy in the evening and enjoy burning off the stress of the day after work so they can relax and enjoy their evenings and get better sleep,' says Fletcher.
Consistency and emotional safety are key. Rigid expectations (like believing there's only one 'right' time to exercise) can actually increase stress, according to the experts.
Best time to work out: Whatever time brings the most emotional benefit. That can often mean in the morning for structure or at night to relieve stress.
Getting Started
Not sure where you fall on the personality spectrum—or how to match that with a time of day that works for you? Start with self-reflection. 'Know thyself,' says Fletcher. 'Understanding and accepting strengths, challenges, needs and wants are crucial to developing a lifestyle conducive to engaging in physical activity and maintaining overall health and well-being.'
Whether you're morning-minded or a night owl, these tips can help you build a habit that sticks:
Start Gradually. You don't need to jump into daily HIIT sessions. Begin with 10 to 20 minutes of movement a few times a week and build from there. Being consistent is more important than intensity or frequency.
Tie It to a Trigger. Link your workout to something you already do—like shutting your laptop for the day—to build consistency.
Track How You Feel. Use a journal or app to record your mood and energy after different workout times. Look for patterns that might reveal your sweet spot.
Make It Fun. Whether it's dancing in your living room or walking with a friend, choose activities that make you feel good—not ones you think you should do.
Build in Accountability. Especially helpful for extraverts and agreeable types—plan workouts with a friend or sign up for a class.
As for personality assessments? While quizzes can be fun and insightful, experts caution against over-relying on them or self-diagnosing. Use personality traits as a guide, not a rulebook.
Our Expert Take
There's no single 'best' time of day to work out based on personality, but understanding your motivational drivers can help you design a routine that fits. 'It's not about rigidly tailoring behavior to fit a type,' says O'Hana. 'It's about cultivating self-mastery and creating a lifestyle that supports your mental and physical well-being.'
Ultimately, the time you're most likely to show up and feel good doing it is the best time for you. Use your personality as a compass—not a constraint—and you'll be more likely to stick with movement for the long haul.
Read the original article on EATINGWELL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legionnaires' disease cluster in New York City causes a 4th death, sickens over 100 people. What is it, and how do you get it?
NYC health officials identified the buildings connected to the outbreak, one being Harlem Hospital. A fourth person has died, and over 100 people have been sickened with Legionnaires' disease — 15 of them currently hospitalized — amid an outbreak in central Harlem in New York City, health officials said Thursday. The disease was initially detected on July 25. Since then, the New York City Department of Health has been investigating the cluster and linked it to 12 cooling towers in 10 Harlem buildings. Cooling towers are structures containing water and a fan that are used to regulate a building's temperature. Eleven of the 12 cooling towers that tested positive for the bacteria that cause Legionnaires' disease have been remediated, with the last one currently undergoing remediation, acting Health Commissioner Michelle Morse said during a Thursday news conference. Health officials released a list on Thursday that identifies the 10 buildings connected to the outbreak: BRP Companies, Lafayette Development LLC, 2239 Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd. BVK, 215 W. 125th St. Commonwealth Local Development, 301 W. 124th St. CUNY — City College Marshak Science Building, 181 Convent Ave. Harlem Center Condo, 317 Lenox Ave. NYC Economic Development Corporation, 40 W. 137th St. NYC Health Department Central Harlem Sexual Health Clinic, 2238 Fifth Ave. NYC Health + Hospitals/Harlem, 506 Lenox Ave. The New York Hotel Trades Council Harlem Health Center, 133 Morningside Ave. Wharton Properties, 100 W. 125th St. (three of eight towers) Overall, the following ZIP codes have been affected in Harlem: 10027, 10030, 10035, 10037 and 10039. 'We are continuing to urge all New Yorkers who live or work in the identified ZIP codes in central Harlem who have flu-like symptoms to contact a health care provider immediately,' Morse said. 'New Yorkers should know the air is safe to breathe, and we are seeing declining numbers of new cases each day,' New York City Mayor Eric Adams told the media. 'I want to thank the health workers who worked tirelessly to treat this community and make sure its residents are healthy.' What is Legionnaires' disease? It's a serious type of pneumonia, a lung infection, that is caused by Legionella bacteria. People can become sick from inhaling water vapor that's contaminated with Legionella bacteria. Less commonly, a person can get sick when water contaminated with the bacteria accidentally enters the lungs by aspiration. How does it spread? In general, Legionnaires' is not transmitted from person to person. Legionella can grow and spread in human-made water systems like showerheads and sink faucets, hot tubs, decorative fountains, complex and large plumbing systems and cooling towers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There are also factors that make it easier for Legionella to grow and survive in water, including: Biofilm, which is slime that enables germs to grow Temperatures from 77 degrees to 113 degrees Fahrenheit Not having enough disinfectant Slow or no water movement (read more from the CDC about how to prevent waterborne germs while away from your home) What are the symptoms of Legionnaires' disease? Symptoms usually appear in a person within two to 14 days after they've been exposed to the bacteria, the CDC says. Symptoms can be similar to other types of pneumonia, such as: Headache Muscle aches Shortness of breath Cough Fever Other symptoms can include confusion, diarrhea or nausea. Who is at risk of getting sick? Most healthy people exposed to Legionella don't become ill, according to the CDC's website. However, the following people are at increased risk of getting sick from the bacteria: People 50 years and older Current or former smokers People with specific health issues or conditions, like cancer, chronic lung disease, diabetes, kidney failure, liver failure and a weak immune system Diagnosis and treatment A chest X-ray can confirm if a person has pneumonia. But additional tests are needed to confirm if Legionella bacteria is the cause behind it, such as a urine test, or a lab test involving a sample from phlegm (sputum) or lung lavage (lung washing), according to the CDC. The disease is treatable with antibiotics, but hospital care is often needed.
Medscape
27 minutes ago
- Medscape
Aug 15 2025 This Week in Cardiology
Please note that the text below is not a full transcript and has not been copyedited. For more insight and commentary on these stories, subscribe to the This Week in Cardiology podcast , download the Medscape app or subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast provider. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. In This Week's Podcast For the week ending August 15, 2025, John Mandrola, MD, comments on the following topics: Big, new hypertension guidelines, ultraprocessed foods, coronary sinus reduction and evidence-based medicine, and more news on pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation. BP Meds Should Begin Promptly, New ACC/AHA Guidelines Say There are new AHA-led guidelines on hypertension out yesterday. The PDF is more than 100 pages. There's no way to hit every highlight; I will write a column on what I like and don't like next week. Here are some nuggets from the massive document that's only been out for a day. The writers provide a 'Top Take-Home messages' section. This I do not like, for the same reasons I don't like summary figures or infographics or 3-minute recap videos, no matter how funny the narrator may be. Medicine is about details, and these efforts to reduce a 100-page PDF into take-home messages is a bad idea. I do like the early and well-detailed emphasis on taking blood pressure (BP) properly. You know, feet on the floor, arm rested, not talking, etc. This is not done in many offices—which boggles my mind. The committee is strongly against cuffless BP devices. I did not know that — and it's good to know. There is a nice section on secondary hypertension; the two most common causes are primary aldosteronism and obstructive sleep apnea, both of which should be referred to specialty physicians. Other important causes of hypertension are alcohol or certain drugs, like NSAIDs. Much less common is renovascular disease, the authors write. The prevalence of primary aldosteronism is approximately 5% to 10% among individuals with stage 1 hypertension and 11% to 22% among individuals with stage 2 hypertension, which varies depending on the modality of testing and testing thresholds used to diagnose primary aldosteronism. The authors do not give short shrift to prevention or hypertension via lifestyle. I have little to say about it because a) it is obvious that diet, exercise, moderation of alcohol, and proper sleep is foundational for having good health — and good BP. One large change in this document is the treatment threshold using cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation with the PREVENT score, which is new from AHA. I've covered PREVENT on previous podcasts. It's pretty controversial because it is felt to be a more accurate risk estimator, but — and this is a huge but — the PREVENT score results in fewer people reaching statin-starting threshold. But PREVENT features prominently in these hypertension guidelines, and the first is the choice to start therapy. BP > 140/90 is one criteria, regardless of comorbid conditions, but for BP >130/80 patients, initiation turns on the presence of CVD, diabetes, CKD, or PREVENT > 7.5%. PREVENT also features in goals. The aim is usually below 130/80 and push toward < 120 systolic when PREVENT is > 7.5%. So, there is a concern that since PREVENT is better calibrated than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), it might result in fewer people being started on treatment than the PCE. The risk of that seems lower, though, in hypertension than in statins, because with statins it is largely a risk-based decision, whereas in hypertension, there is also the marker of 140/90 or 130/80 with CVD, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and diabetes. The authors don't say this, but I will repeat myself: the main purpose and largest value of hypertension treatment comes in treating younger people early in life, so that they avoid stroke, kidney disease and heart disease, and live to old age. When they reach old age, they have won. Prevention now must be balanced against harm. The authors spend many words and academic-speak on treatment in the elderly. I would summarize it this way: Use Common Sense . An octogenarian is winning the game of life. Our job is to not mess things up with hypotension-induced broken hip or subdural hematoma. Nothing new comes in the choice of medication. It's thiazide-type diuretics, long-acting dihydropyridines, calcium channel blockers, and ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blockers — all recommended as first-line therapy to prevent CVD. Note, no beta-blockers are listed as first line. One twist on imitation comes in section 5, where the authors recommend starting medical therapy for patients with stage 2 hypertension (>140/90) with two first-line meds of different classes in a single-pill combination — for adherence's sake. I used to be against this. I've changed. Because anything the decreases the work of being a patient, I am for. What's more, there is strong empirical evidence that combination pills increase adherence. Treatment goals follow the trials — namely SPRINT, which found advantages to BP 120/80 in patients with high CV risk. This is fine, again, more beneficial in 50- and 60-year-olds, so that they get to 90 without a stroke or myocardial infarction (MI). Recall that the ACCORD trial in patients with diabetes did not find benefit for the lower target. So, do aggressive targets not work for patients with diabetes? I would cite two lines of evidence suggesting that we also consider lower targets in patients with diabetes: one is that the recently published BPROAD trial found SPRINT-like benefits for 120 vs 140 target in 12,000 patients from China. I also love a paper by Luke Lafflin where he and Francis Alenghat created a SPRINT Trial score based not on inclusion criteria but actual clinical characteristics from Table 1 . And then applied it to patients in ACCORD... Boom: the SPRINT Trial Score was able to discriminate a subpopulation of patients with diabetes who were in SPRINT's data-rich zone and responded to intensive blood pressure control in the same way as SPRINT even though ACCORD-BP, on the whole, was a 'negative' trial. There are large sections on managing BP in stroke and intracranial hemorrhage as well as pregnancy, and since these are so often a subspecialty field that I am not involved in, I have won't say much about those. One section that I do want to comment on is Resistant Hypertension and Renal Denervation (RDN). I think the authors are quite sober about RDN. First, section 5.6 on resistant hypertension is very good. Confirm it. Look closely at adherence. I can't emphasize this enough, because throughout my years, I stopped counting how many times a patient with resistant hypertension becomes hypotensive in the hospital when put back on meds. Another nugget: use mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) for resistant hypertension, and when they are poorly tolerated, use amiloride. This is a trick my nephrology friends taught me. The putative wonder drug finerenone is mentioned only once in the document, in the references, but I do have to wonder if there may be a role when spironolactone and eplerenone are poorly tolerated. As for RDN, the authors are cautious, and I highlight this passage: 'While some trials showed a small but significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure by SBP by 3 to 5 mm Hg over the sham arm, others failed to reach their primary endpoint. Although broader indications are approved for the renal denervation devices by the FDA, given the relatively short duration of follow-up in clinical trials with modest BP-lowering effects and the absence of CVD outcome trials, renal denervation should not be considered as a curative therapy for hypertension or full replacement for antihypertensive drugs.' I think this is a good statement. I would have been stronger, but this is pretty strong. In the colored box where they give the recommendations a 2b level, they write that RDN may be reasonable if meds are not effective or intolerable. I really worry about the intolerable label. While there are some patients who poorly tolerate meds, I worry that if RDN earns reimbursement status from payers, there will be an epidemic of patients who cannot tolerate BP meds. I can even imagine direct-to-consumer ads creating a disease category of not tolerating BP meds. This could morph into the left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) situation where there are posters in lobbies of hospitals encourage patients to consider a nonmedical option for stroke prevention. I cannot be more clear: These sorts of things are a blemish on our profession. We shred our status as respected professionals when we promote procedures like LAAO and RDN. RDN trials were either negative, or found minimal differences in systolic blood pressure, over no more than a few months. Do not be fooled by any of the extension studies with RDN, because the nanosecond that a RDN trial unblinds patients, results are worthless — see the SYMPLICITY 1 and 2 trials. I will write these thoughts up in a formal column next week. Stay tuned for that. The American Heart Association has been busy. Also in Circulation is a long scientific statement on ultraprocessed foods and their association with cardiometabolic health. I am no nutrition expert. Perhaps you are not either. But we all know a few facts: Fact 1: Cardiometabolic health in the US is public health crisis of massive proportions. The saddest part is how it is has decimated the health of children—especially children in lower socioeconomic levels. Fact 2: Snack foods taste good, are easy to obtain, less expensive but have extremely poor nutritional quality. When there is junk food in break rooms in hospitals, it disappears. Donuts — gone! Fact 3: Many of these snack foods are ultraprocessed and filled with artificial dyes. Fact 4: My grandkids go to public schools that do not have gym class every day. Let me repeat that: They don't have gym class every day. How can kids concentrate on learning without exercise? I cannot do it. While I am not sure of his how to untangle the ultraprocessing and chemical components from the fact that most of the foods are full of empty calories, I think the medical profession must try to help sort out this public health crisis of terrible cardiometabolic health. There is low-hanging fruit. Excess calories in the form of carbohydrates is one of them. Not having enough focus on exercise is another. I am not sure food processing and artificial dye is the best initial target. I may be wrong, or just naive, but it strikes me how different other countries handle this problem. When you go to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) meeting in Amsterdam, for instance, you look out the window of the conference center and see packs of lean Dutch kids riding their bikes to school. In the United States, you see lines of running cars at schools waiting to drive their kids home or drop them off. And therein lies a clue, I think. Coronary Sinus Reducer Shows Promise, With Caveats The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is a balloon-expandable hourglass-shaped stent that when deployed causes narrowing of the coronary sinus. It increases coronary sinus pressure, which is believed to redistribute blood flow from nonischemic into ischemic myocardium. The device is not used or approved in the United States, so my colleagues here may not know about it. But a recently published meta-analysis in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions is still worth your time, from an evidence-based medicine (EBM) perspective. It's from the group led by Rasha Al-Lamee at Imperial College in London. They meta-analyzed the data for CSR to treat refractory angina. It stems from single-arm, unblinded studies and three sham-controlled trials. Recall that the CSR can relieve angina by two mechanisms: one is by the physical effects of directing blood flow to under perfused areas. The second way — and the authors of the meta-analysis call this contextual effects or non-treatment related phenomenon — this includes the placebo effect, the Hawthorne effect, the care setting effect, as well as things like confounding bias and natural history. These nontreatment related phenomena are the reason you tell patients who you just put in a stent or pacemaker that they will be hard to contain. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a bit divergent: in general, they find reductions of angina symptoms but mostly do not show any objective differences in perfusion. The most recent and largest trial, also from the Imperial College group, the ORBITA-COSMIC trial of 50 patients (50% got CSR and 50% got a sham CSR) found no significant difference in stress myocardial blood flow, but they did find significant reduction in daily angina episodes. The main finding of the meta-analysis was that the single-arm studies showed much larger effects on reduction of angina than the pooled estimate from the 3 sham-controlled RCTs. For instance, 81% of patients in the non-blinded studies improve 1 functional class with CSR vs only 26% in the sham-controlled arm. And for the Seattle Angina Questionnaire domain measures of angina, the RCTs actually found no statistically significant differences, whereas all the domains were positive in the uncontrolled settings. I highlight this study, and Medscape Cardiology wisely has a news story on it because it so beautifully reveals the need for proper placebo-controlled trials in the procedural interventional field. If all we used were noncontrolled studies, we'd think the CSR was an amazing anti-anginal device. Yet it seems too obvious to say this, that doing procedures comes with the physiologic effect of the procedure plus all the other things, like expectation and changes in natural history and Hawthorne effect. Who, I ask, has not had post-AF ablation patient sing your praises for improving their quality of life after ablation only to be in AF during the visit? In the matter of the CSR, the Imperial College team are doing a larger RCT called COSIRA-II, which will hopefully further sort out the true placebo-resistant effect size of this procedure. It's an important thing to know because the implant procedure can have serious, albeit low incident, complications. It boggles my mind that medical scientists felt that we could measure quality-of-life (QoL) benefits in patients with tricuspid valve interventions without a proper placebo control. This is clear evidence that you need placebos every bit as much for procedures as you do for tablets. And placebo controls are not only for subjective endpoints. Recall that the SYMPLICITY III hypertension trial found that the excitement of blood pressure reductions from renal denervation were much more modest when compared against a sham control. I am going to report on another positive, albeit preliminary, study on pulsed field ablation (PFA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. You know that I am a slow-adopting medically conservative doctor. New things worry me. But it's been about a year with PFA during AF ablation. I have not once gone back to thermal ablation since adopting PFA. RCTs have shown similar efficacy and safety. You still can get tamponade and stroke. But the dreaded complications of death from atrioesophageal fistula have not occurred in PFA, because it is cardioselective. At my center, my partner and I have done at least 300 cases of PFA ablation and we feel that the efficacy is better. I emphasize feel . We do far fewer repeat procedures. Patients also have less post-procedure symptoms of inflammation. Less chest pain. Less heart failure episodes. This month, the group led by Professor Andrea Natale have published an interesting observational non-random comparison of anticoagulation after thermal and PFA ablation. It's nonrandom and we must be careful, but here is what they did, and found: About 400 patients had radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and 400 had PFA at multiple institutions. The authors did propensity matching to attempt to balance the characteristics. The good news is that the colleagues of Dr Natale tend to do AF ablation in the same way. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and posterior wall isolation, with both RFA, and now PFA. So at least there is not much procedural variation. Half of each group (n= 200) each stopped the oral anticoagulant (OAC) after 1 month; the other 200 stopped after 2 months. So, they had four subgroups. There was no protocol. Stopping OAC was done for different reasons. The groups that stopped OAC after only 1 month were called Group 1. The groups that continued OAC for more than 2 months were called Group 2. The findings were dramatic, very dramatic in fact: in the Groups 1, stopping after one month, there were 0 strokes in the PFA group and 16 in the RFA group . In the Groups 2, those who continued OAC for more than 2 months, there were 2 stroke events in the PFA group vs 7 in the RFA group. What's more, AF recurrence occurred in 18% of the PFA group vs 27% in the RFA group. A statistically significant difference, which could have been a driver of differences in stroke events. While this is observational, and surely confounded, but it is prospective data finding that in at least 200 patients who stopped OAC 1 month after PFA, there were 0 strokes—whereas there were a lot of stroke events after stopping OAC after RFA. It suggests that perhaps there is less inflammation and/or endothelial disruption with PFA than with RFA. And, if this is confirmed in other studies, it would be yet another huge advantage to be able to stop OAC that quickly after AF ablation. I reiterate, though, that this observation needs further confirmation.
CBS News
28 minutes ago
- CBS News
Meat, dairy allergies from tick bites "skyrocketing" on Martha's Vineyard, expert says
There's a new medical issue on Martha's Vineyard, and it's impacting the way people eat. It's known as "alpha-gal syndrome," and is not a tick-borne illness, but rather an allergy in response to a tick bite. "It's skyrocketing across the island," explained Patrick Roden-Reynolds, a biologist and tick researcher on Martha's Vineyard. The allergy can come in response to a bite from a Lone Star tick, which are common in the south but have recently shown up in large numbers on the Vineyard - due to a combination of climate and an unusually large deer population, experts say. "In the last 15 years, the Lone Star tick has gone from non-existent on the island to fully abundant and everywhere," Roden-Reynolds explained. "So, the way I've been explaining it, our public health burden with just deer ticks and Lyme disease was, you know, already here at our eyeballs, and now with the Lone Star tick and alpha-gal concerns, it's way above our head." The allergy can cause a range of symptoms up to serious anaphylaxis in response to eating or even being near mammal meat, dairy, and some mammal-related products inside medicine. "Alpha-gal syndrome has been so explosive on Martha's Vineyard that pretty much it comes up in every conversation that I have, ticks or alpha-gal syndrome, even without folks knowing what I do for work," explained Lea Hamner, an epidemiologist on the island. Hamner provided WBZ with a graph that shows the increase in positive allergy testing on the island - from 32 in 2021 to more than 500 positive tests in 2024. There is still a lot to learn about the allergy, Hamner says, though one thing is known: people can go into remission, and an exacerbating force that makes the allergy worse is an increase in tick bites. "One thing that does influence whether you have a shot at remission is whether you stop getting tick bites," Hamner said. "More tick bites can send you back into allergy or keep you there. And so that's one of the really key things, is preventing more tick bites." How to prevent tick bites? According to experts: The prevalence of the allergy has changed the way restaurants are doing business. "Restaurants, food trucks, and other food establishments are including alpha-gal-friendly menu items on their menu," Roden-Reynolds explained. "Alpha-gal is now a selection you can choose on your list of allergies if you're ordering takeout, too."
