Your morning shower is ruining your nighttime sleep, says expert — here's why
There's nothing like a refreshing shower in the morning to kickstart your day. However, if you're struggling to sleep this summer, that step in your morning routine may be to blame.
Yes, while 60% of Americans like to shower in the morning, NHS physician Dr Tim Mercer at Opera Beds says it may be wise to switch to an evening shower to improve your sleep.
And, no, it's not because a nice, warm shower before bed is relaxing.
It actually all comes down to a particular reason regarding hygiene. So, if you're a morning showerer or prefer an evening rinse, read on to discover why your sleep hinges on your showering schedule.
An evening shower is better for sleep for a particular reason: allergies.
"Allergies can hit hard, especially at night," says Dr Mercer. 'For many, that means disrupted sleep, itchy eyes, and endless sneezing."
Mercer explains that we collect allergens such as pollen or dust mites throughout the day, so you're likely taking all these allergens to bed with you by not showering in the evening.
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
"Pollen also clings to clothes, hair, and bedding, creating an invisible storm of irritation," the physician says. "You can shower before bed to wash off pollen, stopping it from transferring to your pillow."
For more advice about allergies and sleep read our guide on how to sleep with allergies.
If you're debating whether a hot vs cold shower is better for sleep, research and sleep experts tend to lean towards warm.
A 2019 review of 13 studies found a warm bath or shower between 40 and 42.5 °C improved sleep quality and efficiency.
"A warm shower taken one to two hours before bedtime triggers vasodilation (blood vessel expansion) in your extremities, which helps dissipate core body heat more efficiently afterward," Dr. David Rosen, medical director at sleep apnea treatment company Complete Sleep, recently told Tom's Guide.
"This enhances your natural temperature drop."
While a warm shower can prepare you for bed, showering too close to your bedtime may actually ruin your sleep.
Like Dr Rosen mentioned above, try to shower around one to two hours before shuteye.
Studies have shown that aromatherapy can improve sleep and relaxation, so try incorporating soothing scents into your evening shower.
You can introduce relaxing scents through soaps or even shower mists, selecting products with calming fragrances such eucalyptus (which research shows can reduce congestion and sleep apnea) and lavender (studies show it increases quality of sleep and reduce anxiety).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Most people are guilty of doing this in the shower — but experts warn it's incredibly dangerous: ‘Don't do it'
What you do in the shower is your business, but the one thing experts are warning you to stop doing while sudsing up: peeing. One healthcare expert shared in a now-viral TikTok with over 1 million views that emptying your bladder while standing in the shower can be damaging — especially for women. Advertisement 'Hot take but don't pee standing up in the shower or anywhere for that matter. Ladies, you are training your bladder that it's okay to empty while standing. Don't do it! This could cause bladder leakage,' @kingsley.502 wrote as her caption. As expected, people ran to the comment section to share their opinions on this advice. 'My body created a human… I'm gonna let her tinkle wherever she likes,' one commenter wrote. Advertisement 'I can't even enjoy the simple pleasures in life,' shared another frustrated person. 'Meanwhile sitting for too long messes with our pelvic floor. So what actually is ok anymore?' said someone else, making a valid point. Many people in the comments of the viral TikTok video were upset to learn of this news. uduhunt – It's no surprise that this news is upsetting for many, considering almost a quarter of Americans admit to peeing in the shower regularly, according to a survey. Advertisement Unfortunately for these multitasking people, @kingsley.502 wasn't far off with her opinion on shower peeing — as other experts backed up her claims. 'It is one, not very hygienic, but more important than that, it will destroy your pelvic floor, and also it might create mental associations where you hear water running and all of a sudden you need to run to the bathroom,' Houston-based OB-GYN Emma Qureshey explained in a TikTok. And standing while peeing is not only unhealthy for women — it's also dangerous for men. Advertisement Since the pelvis and spine muscles are most relaxed when sitting, Gerald Collins, a consultant urological surgeon at Alexandra Hospital in Cheshire, England, said that 'Sitting is probably the most efficient way of doing it [peeing]' the doctor explained, Standing while urinating also puts men at risk for benign prostatic hyperplasia — which occurs when the prostate gland and surrounding tissue expand, obstructing the urethra. Sadly, for many men, the thought of sitting while peeing is looked down upon. In Germany, those who don't stand to relieve themselves are called 'Sitzpinkler' — a slur implying they are 'wimpy or effeminate.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
How Kennedy's overhaul could make vaccines more expensive
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s moves to upend decades of vaccine policy could hit patients hardest in their wallets, as shifting guidance over shots could make insurance coverage confusing and scattershot. For decades, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) independent advisory panel recommended which shots Americans should get and when. The Affordable Care Act requires all insurance companies to cover, for free, all vaccines the panel recommends. Those recommendations also help states decide which shots should be mandated for schoolchildren. Kennedy's most recent move to purge the entire advisory panel and replace them with his own handpicked members, including several vocal vaccine critics, is throwing that process into doubt. 'If we have a system that has been dismantled — one that allowed for open, evidence-based decisionmaking and that supported transparent and clear dialogue about vaccines — and then we replace it with a process that's driven largely by one person's beliefs, that creates a system that cannot be trusted,' Helen Chu, a newly ousted member of the panel and professor of infectious disease at the University of Washington School of Medicine, said during a press conference. Vaccine prices vary, but without insurance, coronavirus vaccines can cost nearly $150, the MMR shot ranges from $95 to nearly $280, and the HPV vaccine can exceed $300, according to CDC data. Individual pharmacies could charge even more. Candace DeMatteis, policy director at the Partnership to Fight Infectious Disease, said she worries about creating a two-tiered system. 'Out of pocket costs for vaccines become an issue where we could end up with a system where some people can afford vaccinating themselves and their families and others cannot,' DeMatteis said. Prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, vaccine coverage varied significantly depending on the type of insurance a person had. If the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changes recommendations for existing vaccines or doesn't recommend new ones, maintaining access will be difficult. 'It's a seismic shift, if you will, away from facilitating access by removing coverage and cost barriers, to one where there's great uncertainty and coverage and cost issues become barriers,' DeMatteis said. It's not clear what the vetting process was for the eight people Kennedy appointed to the ACIP, or how prepared they will be for their first meeting, which is scheduled to occur in less than two weeks. According to a Federal Register notice, the panel is scheduled to vote on recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines as well as meningococcal, HPV, influenza, and RSV vaccines for adults and maternal and pediatric populations. Health experts said they have serious questions about what direction the new panel will take and whether Americans will still have access to free vaccines, including the coronavirus shot, in time for fall respiratory season. If the ACIP is no longer a reliable, independent authority on vaccines, it 'will be replaced by a patchwork of different policies by different states, and each state will have to make its own decisions,' Chu said. 'Washington state is a place where we have experts and scientists who work together. There are other states where this may not exist, or where they may not choose to recommend vaccines. So that is going to create a lot of chaos,' she added. Some state health officials have already begun taking steps in that direction. The Illinois Department of Health said on social media it will be convening its own vaccine advisory committee and national experts 'to ensure we continue to provide clear, science-backed vaccine guidance for our residents.' When Kennedy unilaterally changed the COVID-19 vaccine guidance earlier this month to remove recommendations for pregnant women and change the open recommendation for children, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said it would continue to recommend the shots for every person at least 6 months old. 'The recent changes in CDC guidance were not made based on new data, evidence, or scientific or medical studies, nor was the guidance issued following normal processes,' the agency said in a statement. Tina Tan, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said her organization as well as other major medical groups including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics Academy have been speaking with insurance companies to urge them to continue paying for shots, even if the panel changes recommendations. Tan mentioned an initiative launched in April by a group of public health experts called the Vaccine Integrity Project, which is working to create an alternative process to maintain vaccine access. The initiative is funded by a foundation backed by Walmart heiress Christy Walton and led by Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Federal law is specific that insurance provisions are tied to the ACIP. Specialty organizations may have expertise to make their own recommendations, but they will still require the cooperation of insurance companies. States are also more limited, and they don't have the same power as the federal government to force coverage. 'I think it remains to be seen what the insurers are going to do,' Tan said. 'However, hopefully, with the discussions going on, they can get the insurers to understand that vaccines are extraordinarily safe and effective and are the best tool that we have to protect persons of all ages against serious vaccine preventable diseases.'
