
From gangrene to deadly liver damage – the 92 conditions linked to going to bed after a specific time
This includes gangrene, liver damage, Parkinson's disease and type 2 diabetes, according to Chinese researchers.
It's no secret that persistent poor sleep can impact your health, with studies showing it may increase the likelihood of developing dementia, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and even cancer.
But much of this research focuses on sleep duration – how many hours of kip participants get a night – rather than factors like bedtime and how well people sleep through the night.
Now, scientists from Peking University and Army Medical University say going to sleep past 12:30am may increase the risk of ill health.
"Evidence suggests that sleep traits might be associated with a number of diseases affecting diverse systems, such as cardiovascular diseases, metabolic disorders, and mental diseases," researchers wrote in Health Data Science.
"However, in most publications to date, sleep has been measured by subjective recall of the participants, which has been found to bear systematic error in some aspects and may lead to misunderstanding of sleep's health impact.
"Furthermore, the available literature has mainly focused on certain sleep traits, namely, sleep duration, while other traits such as sleep timing and sleep rhythm have less often been analysed."
They said sleep regularity - such as going to bed at a consistent time and having stable circadian rhythms - is a little known but critical factor in disease risk.
Researchers used data from 88,461 adults who took part in the UK Biobank study.
Participants wore small sensors called accelerometers, which collected data on their bedtime, how long they slept a night and whether they woke up, for an average of about seven years.
Scientists paired this information with data from NHS records, cancer registries and the National Death Index.
I spent three days at a sleep retreat - these are the top 7 things I learnt
They found that sleep habits picked up through the accelerometers played a significant role in the risk of developing certain diseases.
Researchers studied 172 diseases.
Researchers found that poor sleep habits can double the risk of certain diseases.
For example, participants with the most irregular sleep patterns had more than double the risk of gangrene compared to those with consistent sleep routines
Meanwhile, people who went to sleep after 12:30am had over double the risk of liver problems such as fibrosis and cirrhosis, compared to those who went to bed between 11:00 and 11:30 pm.
For 92 diseases, at least 20 per cent of the risk was due to sleep traits and for 44 diseases, more than 30 per cent of the risk was linked to sleep factors.
Examples included:
Parkinson's disease, where the risk was linked to how consistent sleep was each day.
Heart disease, where the risk was tied to balance between activity and rest.
Type 2 diabetes, where the risk was linked to regular sleep timing.
Obesity, where the risk was tied to balance between activity and rest.
Overactive thyroid, where bedtime played a role.
Urinary incontinence, where risk was linked to sleep quality.
How bad sleep affects weight
Previously in The Sun, experts explained how sleep is closely linked with weight.
Disrupts hunger hormones
Ghrelin is a hormone released after the brain signals the stomach is empty, while leptin is released from fat cells to suppress hunger - and tell the brain it's full.
Studies have shown that when you don't get enough shut-eye, the body makes more ghrelin and less leptin - leaving you more hungry.
One study of 12 men led by University of Chicago showed two days of sleep deprivation drove leptin levels in the blood down by 18 per cent, while increasing ghrelin by 28 per cent.
The men reported a 24 per cent increase in their hunger and appetite compared to when they were given two restful nights.
More time to eat
The less you are asleep, the more you are awake. This gives more of an opportunity to eat.
In the modern day world, people are awake for up to 17 hours at a time - 7am till 12pm. It leaves a huge window for being awake and eating.
If you're struggling with both your weight and sleep, try finishing your meals three to four hours before bed time. That might mean limiting your eating window from 9am until 6pm.
Reach for takeaways
If you have a weird sleeping pattern, chances are your eating schedule is also off-whack.
Struggling to sleep can see us turn to convenience - takeaways, ready meals, oven foods and more, whi;e being energised gives us more motivation to cook healthily.
Eat more calories than normal
Studies suggest that the less sleep you get, the more calorie-dense food you choose to eat.
One study in Chicago found that men ate more food at a buffet after four consecutive night's of rough sleep compared with when they were rested.
They consumed around 340 calories more, mostly because they ate more snacks and carbohydrate-rich food.
Researchers from King's College London also found that adults consumed an additional 385 calories – the equivalent of one and a half Mars Bars – on days after they were deprived of kip by combining the results of 11 previous studies.
More desire for food
Foods, especially those high in calories, are more appetising when we are sleep deprived because we subconsciously know they will boost our energy.
A German study showed the lengths sleepy people would go to for calorific snacks using 32 healthy men.
After a normal dinner and either a restful or restless night's sleep, the men were given three Euros to spend on snacks and told to bid the maximum amount they were willing to spend on each item.
When sleep deprived. participants were willing to pay extra for the junk food items - which they were allowed to eat afterwards - suggesting a stronger desire.
Fat storage more likely
Scientists have warned that not getting enough sleep changes how the body deals with food, which could then lead to weight gain.
One study showed that men who ate a large bowl of chilli mac and cheese after four nights of bad sleep reacted differently to the food than those who were well-rested.
Researchers at Pennsylvania State University said blood tests showed lipids (fats) from foods were cleared faster, suggesting they were being stored almost instantly.
The process did not spring back to its normal rate even after the men were given a long night's sleep.
The study also challenged previous claims that sleeping over nine hours each night is harmful.
Previous research has suggested "long sleepers" could be at higher risk of stroke and heart disease.
Researchers said "misclassification" may be to blame, as 21 per cent of 'long sleepers' actually slept less than six hours, suggesting that time spent in bed is often confused with actual sleep time.
Prof Shengfeng Wang, senior author of the study, said: 'Our findings underscore the overlooked importance of sleep regularity.
'It's time we broaden our definition of good sleep beyond just duration.'
The study team suggested that inflammation could be upping the risk of disease in people who sleep poorly, as disrupted sleep might trigger immune responses that contribute to illness.
Researchers concluded: "Our results may suggest that the various dimensions of sleep traits deserve more attention in future studies and that pursuing comprehensive control of sleep traits may have greater benefit for health over merely ensuring adequate sleep duration."
Fortunately, there are easy things we can do to correct some – if not all – our poor sleep habits, they suggested.
"For example, the disruption of sleep rhythm can be substantially improved if the unhealthy habit of social media use before sleep (so-called Twitter jetlag) can be corrected," they said.
Next, the team will look into whether sleep improvements can reduce the risk of disease over time.
The best sleep routine and environment
Thomas Høegh Reisenhus, TEMPUR® sleep specialist & sleep counsellor, reveals the key components of a good bedtime routine and environment...
A sure-fire way to facilitate a better night's sleep is to practice good sleep hygiene.
Establish a sleep routine that works for you and stick to it.
This will help your body establish a consistent, natural sleep-wake cycle which can do wonders for your overall sleep quality.
As such, try to avoid making up for lost sleep with a lie-in.
Instead of sleeping in, spend your morning reading a book in bed or having a leisurely coffee in the kitchen.
Ensure that your bedroom, bedding, and sleepwear are fit for purpose too.
The ideal sleep environment is dark, quiet, and cool – much like a cave.
If you find unwelcome sources of light are keeping you up, consider investing in an eye mask or black-out curtains.
Adding soft furnishings can be a great way to reduce noise, with the surfaces having an absorptive quality, but if this doesn't work, consider embracing a soothing soundtrack to block it out.
In terms of temperature, try to keep your bedroom at 18°C. You can further reduce the risk of waking up due to overheating by ensuring that all your bedding and sleepwear is made with natural, breathable materials such as cotton and linen.
Bear in mind that everyone is different; what might work for most, may not work for you!
Whilst knowing how much sleep you should get, how to overcome common barriers, and practicing good sleep hygiene can facilitate a great night's sleep, if you continue to struggle with sleep or fatigue persistently, do not hesitate to visit a doctor or health professional for support.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Microplastics are everywhere, even in human testicles. So will the patriarchy finally step in?
There is plastic in your balls! Surely this should be headline news every day until the news breaks that 'there is no longer plastic in your balls', accompanied by photographs of celebration parades and ecstatic couples kissing in the streets. It shouldn't require the 'angle' of a global plastic pollution treaty conference this week to edge it back into the media. It shouldn't oblige a report in medical journal the Lancet on Sunday revealing that the health effects of plastic in the environment are 'causing disease and death from infancy to old age' and are responsible for at least US$1.5tn every year in health-related damages. It should only require you looking at your own balls or – with consent – the balls of someone you truly, deeply love and value, then realising, holy shit, there are microplastics in there. Of course, maybe you live your life balls-free – but perhaps you know a dog? If that dog has balls, then I have terrible news: the scientists who found microplastic particles in every single human testicle in their study found them in all the dogs' balls, too. Patriarchy, not for the first time, you have seriously let me down. Raised from birth in western society, I have been passively inculcated with a relentless message that protecting your balls was our most important collective priority. Freud insisted that male identity was so rooted in the symbolism of aggressively functional genitalia that 'castration anxiety' mobilised men into behaviours of dominance, control and whatever other compensatory masculine unpleasantness Donald Trump got up to this morning. When the boss was 'busting your balls', it was bad. If a situation 'had you by the balls' it was bad. When a woman was a 'ball-busting bitch', she was unforgivable. 'Genital theft panic' is an actual term used by actual anthropologists to describe the social terror of something nefarious stealing function from your soft bits when you're not looking. So, here I was thinking, 'Ah, yes, I don't expect the patriarchy to care that scientists have found synthetic plastics in blood, placenta and breast milk, contributing to placental dysfunction, ovarian atrophy, endometrial hyperplasia and fibrosis in women – because I'm a feminist with pattern recognition. I don't expect the patriarchy gives much more thought to the plastic pollution of waterways, the poisoning of animals, or the fact that there has been a trash island named the North Atlantic Garbage Patch – now hundreds of kilometres across – growing in the ocean since 1972. But now that there are microplastics in your balls with considerable evidence suggesting they are reducing your sperm count, inflaming your tissues and affecting both your and our species' fertility, surely some good old-fashioned genital theft panic will kick in and patriarchy will aggressively – with much swagger – ride in to save what it holds dear. I repeat – you've let me down. Because, given the opportunity to literally save your own balls, you've instead defaulted to a significantly less useful habit of 'bullying people who utter uncomfortable truths' at conferences whenever the plastic problem is mentioned. Experts trying to communicate to the world that the projected tripling of plastic products by 2060 is a catastrophically dumbarse idea say they have been yelled at, harassed and intimidated by representatives of petrochemical lobbies and petrostates who make money from the ubiquitous fossil fuel-based pollution product. This is the sixth attempt at a plastic pollution treaty since plastic started turning up in brains, livers, kidneys, blood, joints and your balls, and the UN decided 'hey, maybe this is a problem?' back in 2022. The previous five attempts have failed. Well may some men fear that the radical humanity of feminism will deprive them of status, power and even identity – but it's not the sisterhood busting your balls, fellas. It's chiefly the fossil-fuel interests of usual suspects like China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US in the form of 460m tonnes of synthetic garbage spewed on to the planet every year. Now microplastics are found everywhere from the peak of Mt Everest to the depths of the Mariana Trench. Lord Howe Island is a volcanic rock island about 600km off the Australian east coast governed under a conservation authority applying strict visitor controls, and if you squeeze the muttonbirds there (please don't), they are so full of plastic that they crunch. They crunch. Male persons, please consider the comparable fate awaiting your balls if the new treaty fails – because those universally plasticised testes from the aforementioned study that should have sent every red-blooded testicle-cherisher across humanity racing for a global ban and immediate cleanup operation were retrieved from people who had died before 2016. Even more plastic has been pumped into the planet since then – and for what? In the majority of cases, single-use plastics used for packaging, drink and food containers. Less than 10% of plastic is recycled. I want you to remember this, men, the next time you stare at a shelf of juicy shrink-wrapped capsicum at the supermarket. I want you to ask, 'what is the trade-off for this?', and to consider the global plastic pollution treaty, and your balls. If patriarchy isn't coming to save them, then maybe you should? Van Badham is a Guardian Australia columnist.


Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
Study attributes 440 'excess deaths' to January's Los Angeles wildfires
LOS ANGELES, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Wildfires that devastated parts of the Los Angeles area in January indirectly led to hundreds of deaths in the ensuing weeks, far exceeding the official toll of 31 fatalities, according to a study released on Wednesday. The research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, estimated 440 "excess deaths" were attributable to the fires from January 5 to February 1, using models that compared predicted mortality under normal circumstances to actual numbers documented during that period. The additional deaths likely reflect a mix of factors, including increased exposure of people with heart and lung disease to poor air quality from smoke and toxins released by the fires, as well as healthcare delays and disruptions, the study said. The findings "underscore the need to complement direct fatalities estimates with alternative methods to quantify the additional mortality burden of wildfires and of climate-related emergencies more broadly," the researchers wrote. Two wind-driven wildfires that erupted during the first week of January on opposite sides of Los Angeles damaged or destroyed nearly 16,000 structures combined - laying waste to much of the seaside district of Pacific Palisades and the foothill community of Altadena. Together, the blazes scorched 59 square miles (152 sq km), an area larger than Paris. The official tally of people who perished as a direct result of the fires stands at 31, after the most recent set of human remains were unearthed in Altadena in July, six months after the fires. Governor Gavin Newsom in February requested nearly $40 billion in wildfire aid from Congress. Some estimates put economic losses from the fires at more than $250 billion, making the conflagration one of the most costly natural disasters in U.S. history. The JAMA study acknowledged some limitations, saying the data may need to be revised upward in the future and the research did not reflect any fire-attributable deaths beyond Feb. 1.


Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Pill that costs just pennies a day linked to decreased risk of dementia, study suggests
Doctors are zeroing in on ways to prevent dementia, and the secret weapon could be an inexpensive drug that has served as the backbone for diabetes treatment for decades. Long before Ozempic splashed onto the scene, transforming type 2 diabetes treatment, there was metformin. Used for about 100 years, metformin lowers the amount of sugar the liver pumps out and helps the body respond to insulin better. It has been the first-line treatment for more than 70 percent of people newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Doctors have suggested through observational studies for several years that the mainstay of diabetes, which roughly 19 million people take for $2 to $20 per month, could have preventive power. Still, evidence has been mixed, with some studies suggesting the drug exacerbates the development of Alzheimer's disease, just one type of dementia, and several others saying it has a protective effect on the brain. Now, doctors from Taipei Medical University in Taiwan are the latest to make the case for the latter. They found that, in half a million overweight and obese people without diabetes, those who took metformin had a lower risk of developing dementia or dying from any cause, regardless of their BMI. Similar to type 2 diabetes, obesity is a risk factor for dementia. Being severely overweight lowers the body's defenses against the damage dementia inflicts on the brain and causes chronic inflammation, potentially damaging nerve cells. Until now, research into metformin as a dementia preventative has primarily focused on people with diabetes. The latest report from Taiwanese researchers is the first to use real-world data to investigate the possibility in people with obesity. The scientists noted the real-world data reflects a diverse population, making the study's findings widely applicable. They used an electronic health records database covering millions of patients from 66 US healthcare systems, including hospitals, specialty centers, and clinics. The researchers said: 'Since central nervous system inflammation and neuroinflammation are crucial factors in the development and progression of neurodegenerative diseases, the anti-inflammatory and antioxidative effects of metformin are especially beneficial in patients with obesity. 'Regular, long-term use of metformin may be an efficient way to prevent dementia.' The study included about 905,000 people in total, split evenly into two groups: those on and those not on metformin. They were matched to be similar in age, health, and other factors for a fair comparison. The metformin group had been prescribed the drug at least twice in their lives for at least six months. The study did not explicitly state why people had been prescribed the drug, but it can be used to treat more than just diabetes, such as prediabetes, those with a metabolic disorder that contributes to obesity, and for polycystic ovary syndrome. Researchers categorized their study subjects, all adults over 18, into four groups: overweight (BMI 25–29.9), Obese class I (BMI 30–34.9), Obese class II (BMI 35–39.9) and morbidly obese (BMI over 40). After following patients for 10 years, those who took metformin had a lower risk of developing dementia across all BMI groups. The amount of risk reduction varied slightly depending on weight, but two of the groups saw significant results. People with a BMI of 30 to 34.9 had a dementia risk about eight percent lower than non-users, while those with a BMI between 25 and 29.9 had a risk about 12.5 percent lower. People with a BMI of 35 to 39.9 had a four percent lower risk, which researchers deemed statistically insignificant, potentially due to a smaller sample size. There was no significant difference in people with a BMI over 40. When looking at death from any cause, metformin users also had a significantly lower risk across all BMI categories. Metformin's effect on death risk was stronger than its effect on dementia risk. Those with a BMI between 25 and 29.9 had a 28 percent lower risk of death, while those with a BMI of 30 to 34.9 had a 27 percent lower risk. People with a BMI of 35 to 39.9 had a 28 percent lower risk of death, and people with a BMI of 40 or above saw a 26 percent lower risk. The Taipei team's findings were published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. Scientists attribute metformin's recently explored impact on cognitive health and dementia to factors unique to the drug and the condition it treats. A type 2 diabetes diagnosis is a leading risk factor for dementia, with one sweeping review in 2013 finding that diabetes patients have a 73 percent higher likelihood of developing dementia and a 56 percent higher likelihood of developing Alzheimer's. Both conditions affect millions in the US. Around 35 million Americans have type 2 diabetes, while an estimated 7million have dementia, including roughly four to 6 million with Alzheimer's disease. Several studies have resulted in compelling evidence that supports metformin's anti-dementia abilities. In 2020, Australian researchers followed over 1,000 dementia-free seniors aged 70 to 90 from Sydney for up to six years, testing their memory and thinking skills at two and six years. The study looked at three main groups: people with type 2 diabetes who were taking metformin, those with diabetes who were not, and people without diabetes. The participants in the study, who did not have dementia at the start, were tested at two years and again at six years for their in-depth memory and executive functioning. After accounting for other health factors, researchers found that the metformin group had an 81 percent lower risk of dementia compared to those with diabetes who weren't on metformin. People with diabetes who didn't take metformin were nearly three times more likely to develop dementia than people without diabetes. Brain scans and thinking tests also suggested that metformin users experienced a slower decline in cognitive abilities, particularly in decision-making and overall brain function.