'I tried Sir David Attenborough's 10-minute tip for health boost'
It's no secret that many of us feel disconnected from nature thanks to our lifestyles. Whether you spend your day rushing from one meeting to the next or you're stuck behind a screen for hours, it's easy to spend the better part of the day indoors, and yet, being out in nature can boost our mental wellbeing.
I'm sorry to say I'm one of the many people who often miss out on the benefits of spending time outdoors. More often than not, I'll go to the gym to work out, and when I do go for a walk or run outdoors, I never stop to smell the roses, so to speak.
So I was intrigued when I heard Sir David Attenborough's advice for people keen to reconnect with nature—and even more interested to learn that this simple practice is associated with a whole host of mental and physical health benefits.
The broadcaster and naturalist, who turns 99 today (May 8), shared his wisdom in a 2021 episode of Call Of The Wild. He told podcast host Cel Spellman about a simple practice that doesn't require much time.
"Sit down. Don't move," said Sir David. "Keep quiet. Wait ten minutes. You'll be very surprised if something pretty interesting didn't happen. Doing that in a woodland, if you haven't done it, it's extraordinary. Don't get too impatient, either."
What's more, research suggests following the advice could boost your physical and mental health. A 2020 study from Cornell University found that students who spent as little as 10 minutes in the natural world daily were less affected by physical and mental stress.
"It doesn't take much time for the positive benefits to kick in - we're talking 10 minutes outside in a space with nature," said Associate Professor Gen Meredith at the time. "We firmly believe that every student, no matter what subject or how high their workload, has that much discretionary time each day, or at least a few times per week."
Elsewhere, Professor Heather Eliassen of Harvard University told Pop Sugar that exposure to green space has been linked to improved sleep and blood pressure, along with reduced risks of chronic disease. "Evidence is also accumulating that exposure to green space is associated with lower total mortality," added Professor Heather.
Intrigued, I told myself I'd try to spend ten minutes outside every day to boost my mental and physical health, and while I had to settle for my garden rather than woodland, I enjoyed my time so much that I'm keen to make it a daily habit going forward.
Just ten minutes outside left me feeling refreshed and less stressed. I surprised myself by finding that I really enjoyed cloud gazing, watching seagulls flying overhead.
Over the sunny bank holiday weekend, I could hear children's laughter echoing from a nearby garden. On the colder days, when nobody else was outdoors, the quiet was calming.
It was nice to have a moment to myself, watching a neighbour's tree sway in the breeze. It was a great reminder that you can enjoy nature wherever you find it.
While I don't have any hard evidence that the practice improved my health, it's easy to see why it could make a difference. I took my ten minutes at the end of each work day, offering myself the chance to decompress and clear my mind before continuing with my evening. It was so simple and yet so effective.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Telegraph
Being stalked raises women's risk of heart disease
Stalking raises the risk of heart disease for women and should be added to risk factors alongside smoking and bad diet, scientists have warned. Harvard University discovered that women who were stalked were 41 per cent more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease, which can cause heart attacks and strokes. For those forced to obtain a restraining order, the risk rose to 70 per cent. One in five women and one in 11 men have been a victim of stalking, according to data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales. Although stalking is known to cause fear and trigger mental health problems, the new study is the first to show it has an impact on heart health. 'To many people, stalking doesn't seem to be such a serious experience, as it often does not involve physical contact. But stalking has profound psychological consequences that can have physical implications,' said senior author Dr Karestan Koenen, professor of psychiatric epidemiology at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. 'Our study highlights that these preventable, common, non-contact forms of violence against women are health hazards and need to be considered as such, just like we consider smoking or poor diet.' Stalking is defined as linked incidents causing distress, fear or alarm, which can involve obscene, threatening unwanted letters, text messages or phone calls, being watched or followed or having people loiter near to the home or workplace. The crime survey estimated there were more than 129,000 stalking offences last year. For the new study researchers looked at the cardiovascular outcomes for 66,270 women, aged between 36 and 56 who were enroled in the Nurses' Health Study II between 2001 and 2021. Around 12 per cent reported that they had been stalked while just over five per cent said they had obtained a restraining order. Researchers found a clear link between cardiovascular disease and stalking. Women whose medical records confirmed heart attacks or strokes were more likely to have reported being stalked or obtaining a restraining order. Experts believe stalking may cause psychological distress, which can disrupt the nervous system, impair proper blood vessel function, and negatively affect other biological mechanisms. Many stressful life experiences are known to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, such as the loss of a loved one or bankruptcy, but it is the first research to link it to stalking. Dr Rebecca Lawn, a research associate in epidemiology at Harvard, said: 'Stalking is often seen as a form of violence that does not involve physical contact, which may make it seem less serious. 'However, our findings suggest stalking should not be minimised. Stalking can be chronic, and women often report making significant changes in response such as moving. 'Perhaps because it is our nature to re-think about things that happen to us, making us experience the situation over and over.' Dr Harmony Reynolds, former chair of American Heart Association's Clinical Cardiology & Stroke Women's Health Science Committee, added: 'While this study shows a more moderate risk, given the long-time frame, it highlights how feeling unsafe can affect the body, in addition to the mind.' The research was published in the journal Circulation.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- The Guardian
RFK Jr has slashed vaccine research. You need to know how perilous that is for the world
You'd be hard-pressed to find many public health experts who have positive things to say about Donald Trump's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States. Alongside his numerous policy failures, one Cornell University study found that he was the biggest source of Covid-19 misinformation. But if there's one redeeming feature to Trump's pandemic record, it has to be his leadership on Operation Warp Speed – a massive, government-funded initiative that played a pivotal role in fast-tracking Covid-19 vaccines. 'Operation Warp Speed stands as one of the most remarkable scientific and humanitarian achievements of the past half-century,' the former US surgeon general Jerome Adams said. It directed billions of dollars into vaccine development and manufacturing, particularly into the mRNA platform, which became the backbone of the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Vaccines work by preparing the body's immune system to identify and successfully attack foreign agents entering the body. Traditional vaccines use weakened or inactivated viruses to offer a baby version for the body to fight and learn from. These vaccines are often produced by growing the virus in hen's eggs, which means production is slow and can take months to scale up. In contrast, the mRNA platform functions like a plug-and-play video game console: you just 'plug in' the genetic code of a particular virus or pathogen. The vaccine provides instructions to our bodies to make parts of the virus in our own cells, which then prompts an immune response. The process of creating and manufacturing these vaccines is much faster and more flexible than their traditional counterparts. This is especially important for a disease such as avian flu, which has an up to 100% mortality rate in chickens. But despite the speed in which they come together, there is still a considerable time-lag before mass rollout to allow for clinical trials to ensure human safety, test for side-effects and figure out optimal dosing. During the Covid pandemic, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were created within weeks of research teams receiving the genetic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 from China in January 2020. What took a year was the testing and regulatory approval processes to ensure there was trust in their safety. Given Trump's success with Operation Warp Speed, it's particularly bizarre that Robert F Kennedy Jr, his health and human services secretary, has announced $500m in cuts to the mRNA vaccine investment portfolio. These include cancelling funding for Moderna's development into a late-stage H5N1 avian flu vaccine. I asked Prof Rebecca Katz, a global health security expert and former US State Department adviser, for her assessment of the damage. She called it: 'A self-inflicted wound to a vital organ.' On its own, RFK Jr's decision isn't surprising, considering his longstanding anti-vax advocacy and cult-like following. He has built a whole identity on anti-science rhetoric and he is especially vocal about the supposed dangers of mRNA technology. But being an anti-vaxxer is also a tricky road to navigate: RFK Jr upset his base when, under considerable political pressure, he finally endorsed MMR vaccinations during the Texas measles outbreak. But putting one personality aside, what do these cuts mean for the health of people living in the US and the wider world? It's bad news. Take the example of H5N1 avian flu. This virus has shown concerning step-changes including becoming endemic in wild birds, infecting a number of poultry farms, and now has sufficient mutations to enable cow-to-cow (mammal to mammal) transmission in the US among dairy cattle. With its circulation in certain herds of dairy cattle has come a rise in human infections (cow-to-human). The virus is now one mutation away from easier transmission among humans. That's the nightmare scenario: an influenza pandemic, possibly more lethal than Covid-19. If a human-to-human transmissible H5N1 strain appears, the existing mRNA infrastructure could be used to rapidly develop a targeted vaccine. Many countries, including the UK, have been stockpiling vaccine components or ramping up surveillance. Under the Biden administration, the US had been among the leaders in this effort. By shelving investment and halting further development, the US is essentially gambling that we won't need quick medical countermeasures. It's a dangerous bet. When the next pandemic happens, the cost in human lives could be much higher than we witnessed in 2020. Can other countries simply pick up the slack with mRNA production? Not easily. After the Covid pandemic led to huge disparities in which places in the world had access to vaccine supply, many countries starting planning for their own vaccine and mRNA hubs. They didn't want to be dependent on the charity of the US or UK to donate them doses: they wanted to independently respond effectively. On a National Academies project that I was vice-chair of on the global coordination of vaccines for pandemic influenza, we looked closely into regional production, including in Africa. What I learned from experts across the world is that vaccine production, especially mRNA-based vaccines, requires a high degree of technical expertise, quality control and highly specialised supply chains. It will happen in other places, but not quickly enough to shoulder the impact of the US decision. Unlike foreign aid cuts, where the effect is felt immediately in the shutting down of food programmes or health clinics, cuts to research funding have a slower, deeper impact, especially in terms of expertise and knowledge generation. Research programmes that were working on pandemic preparedness are closing. Postdoctoral researchers aren't finding jobs, without the necessary soft money to support them. PhD programmes have been frozen or cancelled. Universities, highly dependent on government funding, are scaling back their research activities in health, especially in areas that money is being cut from. Perhaps most devastating of all: smart, ambitious young scientists have fewer opportunities to develop careers in public health research and vaccine development. They'll look elsewhere – into AI, tech, finance. Where will the expertise come from in the next 15 to 20 years if the career pipeline is being shut down? RFK Jr may position himself as Making America Healthy Again, but in reality, his policies make the entire world more vulnerable. He may, in fact, be the most dangerous person in the Trump administration – not because he's loud or erratic, but because he's steadily eroding the foundation of public health research and infrastructure. This isn't just bad policy. It's a generational setback. In that light, RFK Jr stands not merely as a controversial figure but as a serious risk to national and global health security. Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh
The Guardian
6 days ago
- The Guardian
RFK Jr has slashed vaccine research. You need to know how perilous that is for the world
You'd be hard-pressed to find many public health experts who have positive things to say about Donald Trump's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States. Alongside his numerous policy failures, one Cornell University study found that he was the biggest source of Covid-19 misinformation. But if there's one redeeming feature to Trump's pandemic record, it has to be his leadership on Operation Warp Speed – a massive, government-funded initiative that played a pivotal role in fast-tracking Covid-19 vaccines. 'Operation Warp Speed stands as one of the most remarkable scientific and humanitarian achievements of the past half-century,' the former US surgeon general Jerome Adams said. It directed billions of dollars into vaccine development and manufacturing, particularly into the mRNA platform, which became the backbone of the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Vaccines work by preparing the body's immune system to identify and successfully attack foreign agents entering the body. Traditional vaccines use weakened or inactivated viruses to offer a baby version for the body to fight and learn from. These vaccines are often produced by growing the virus in hen's eggs, which means production is slow and can take months to scale up. In contrast, the mRNA platform functions like a plug-and-play video game console: you just 'plug in' the genetic code of a particular virus or pathogen. The vaccine provides instructions to our bodies to make parts of the virus in our own cells, which then prompts an immune response. The process of creating and manufacturing these vaccines is much faster and more flexible than their traditional counterparts. This is especially important for a disease such as avian flu, which has an up to 100% mortality rate in chickens. But despite the speed in which they come together, there is still a considerable time-lag before mass rollout to allow for clinical trials to ensure human safety, test for side-effects and figure out optimal dosing. During the Covid pandemic, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were created within weeks of research teams receiving the genetic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 from China in January 2020. What took a year was the testing and regulatory approval processes to ensure there was trust in their safety. Given Trump's success with Operation Warp Speed, it's particularly bizarre that Robert F Kennedy Jr, his health and human services secretary, has announced $500m in cuts to the mRNA vaccine investment portfolio. These include cancelling funding for Moderna's development into a late-stage H5N1 avian flu vaccine. I asked Prof Rebecca Katz, a global health security expert and former US State Department adviser, for her assessment of the damage. She called it: 'A self-inflicted wound to a vital organ.' On its own, RFK Jr's decision isn't surprising, considering his longstanding anti-vax advocacy and cult-like following. He has built a whole identity on anti-science rhetoric and he is especially vocal about the supposed dangers of mRNA technology. But being an anti-vaxxer is also a tricky road to navigate: RFK Jr upset his base when, under considerable political pressure, he finally endorsed MMR vaccinations during the Texas measles outbreak. But putting one personality aside, what do these cuts mean for the health of people living in the US and the wider world? It's bad news. Take the example of H5N1 avian flu. This virus has shown concerning step-changes including becoming endemic in wild birds, infecting a number of poultry farms, and now has sufficient mutations to enable cow-to-cow (mammal to mammal) transmission in the US among dairy cattle. With its circulation in certain herds of dairy cattle has come a rise in human infections (cow-to-human). The virus is now one mutation away from easier transmission among humans. That's the nightmare scenario: an influenza pandemic, possibly more lethal than Covid-19. If a human-to-human transmissible H5N1 strain appears, the existing mRNA infrastructure could be used to rapidly develop a targeted vaccine. Many countries, including the UK, have been stockpiling vaccine components or ramping up surveillance. Under the Biden administration, the US had been among the leaders in this effort. By shelving investment and halting further development, the US is essentially gambling that we won't need quick medical countermeasures. It's a dangerous bet. When the next pandemic happens, the cost in human lives could be much higher than we witnessed in 2020. Can other countries simply pick up the slack with mRNA production? Not easily. After the Covid pandemic led to huge disparities in which places in the world had access to vaccine supply, many countries starting planning for their own vaccine and mRNA hubs. They didn't want to be dependent on the charity of the US or UK to donate them doses: they wanted to independently respond effectively. On a National Academies project that I was vice-chair of on the global coordination of vaccines for pandemic influenza, we looked closely into regional production, including in Africa. What I learned from experts across the world is that vaccine production, especially mRNA-based vaccines, requires a high degree of technical expertise, quality control and highly specialised supply chains. It will happen in other places, but not quickly enough to shoulder the impact of the US decision. Unlike foreign aid cuts, where the effect is felt immediately in the shutting down of food programmes or health clinics, cuts to research funding have a slower, deeper impact, especially in terms of expertise and knowledge generation. Research programmes that were working on pandemic preparedness are closing. Postdoctoral researchers aren't finding jobs, without the necessary soft money to support them. PhD programmes have been frozen or cancelled. Universities, highly dependent on government funding, are scaling back their research activities in health, especially in areas that money is being cut from. Perhaps most devastating of all: smart, ambitious young scientists have fewer opportunities to develop careers in public health research and vaccine development. They'll look elsewhere – into AI, tech, finance. Where will the expertise come from in the next 15 to 20 years if the career pipeline is being shut down? RFK Jr may position himself as Making America Healthy Again, but in reality, his policies make the entire world more vulnerable. He may, in fact, be the most dangerous person in the Trump administration – not because he's loud or erratic, but because he's steadily eroding the foundation of public health research and infrastructure. This isn't just bad policy. It's a generational setback. In that light, RFK Jr stands not merely as a controversial figure but as a serious risk to national and global health security. Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh
