Here's why 90% of Americans don't sleep through the night, according to expert
Sleep is of great importance to overall health, but many people struggle to get quality slumber.
In an annual survey by U.S. News, which was released in March, thousands of Americans weighed in on their sleep habits.
While the National Institutes of Health recommends seven to nine hours of sleep every night, 58% of people reported sleeping six to seven hours a night.
Meanwhile, one in five Americans (20%) reported only getting four to five hours.
The survey also found that 25% of respondents use over-the-counter or prescription sleep aids.
The largest finding revealed that 89% of U.S. adults wake up regularly during the night.
More than one in three (40%) Americans said they wake up often, even if it doesn't happen daily.
Sleep expert Wendy Troxel, PhD — a RAND Corporation senior behavioral specialist and licensed clinical psychologist in Utah — shared a few reasons Americans aren't sleeping through the night.
"Given the stress and uncertainty in today's world, it is not particularly surprising that a striking number of people are facing trouble staying asleep," she said in an interview with Fox News Digital.
Other health conditions like chronic pain — or sleep disorders such as sleep apnea or insomnia — can also disrupt sleep, according to Troxel.
Environmental factors like pollution and rising global temperatures can also contribute to "fragmented sleep," as temperature can manipulate the circadian rhythm, the expert added.
"As part of the circadian rhythm (which regulates sleep-wake cycles among other things), the body's core temperature naturally decreases at night, signaling that it's time to sleep," she said.
"If you wake up and can't get back to sleep, get out of bed and do something calming but distracting."
"A cooler environment facilitates this temperature drop, promoting deeper and more restful sleep."
The recommended temperature for quality sleep is between 65 and 68 degrees Fahrenheit, according to experts.
Troxel recommended using breathable bedding, wearing lightweight sleepwear and using fans or air-conditioning to regulate temperature.
"Investing in temperature-regulating mattresses or mattress pads can also help maintain a comfortable temperature throughout the night," she advised.
Troxel also named menopause as a "significant factor" for sleep disruptions, with about 60% of women experiencing restless nights during this transition.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
"Hormonal fluctuations throughout the menstrual cycle and during menopause influence thermoregulation and can contribute to sleep disruptions in women," she said.
To prevent waking up in the middle of the night, Troxel shared that "one of the most effective strategies" is stimulus control.
"If you wake up and can't get back to sleep, get out of bed and do something calming but distracting, like reading a book or gently stretching," she suggested. "This can help break the habit of being awake and frustrated in bed."
"You want your brain to associate your bed as a sanctuary for sleep, not as a place for frustration and worry."
Troxel also encouraged people to resist the urge to check the clock in the middle of the night.
"Seeing the time at 3 a.m. only exacerbates stress and anxiety," she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Talkiatry Chief Medical Officer and co-founder Dr. Georgia Gaveras, DO named to Modern Healthcare's 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives Class of 2025
NEW YORK, June 9, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Talkiatry, a leading provider of high-quality, in-network psychiatry and therapy services, is proud to announce that co-founder and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Georgia Gaveras, DO has been recognized by Modern Healthcare as one of the 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives for 2025. Detailed profiles of all the honorees are featured in the June 9, 2025 issue of Modern Healthcare's magazine and online at This program honors licensed clinicians in executive roles who are recognized by the senior editors of Modern Healthcare and selected for their exceptional achievements in driving innovation, improving outcomes, serving their communities, and demonstrating exemplary leadership both within and beyond their organizations. "Becoming a clinician doesn't automatically prepare one for a leadership role, helping to guide an organization or an industry. The 50 clinicians chosen this year as the most influential, some newcomers and some we have recognized previously, are having an oversized impact," said Mary Ellen Podmolik, editor-in-chief of Modern Healthcare. "Their work is benefiting their own teams in terms of clinical advancements and financial results and is leading to better patient outcomes." With more than 600 licensed psychiatrists and 150+ therapists treating children, adults, and seniors for conditions including ADHD, anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, OCD, and PTSD, Talkiatry has expanded to 47 states and reaches over 70% of commercially insured Americans through partnerships with more than 60 insurance providers, including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, United Healthcare, Cigna, and Humana. As access has increased, Talkiatry's dedication to high-quality care continues to lead to positive patient outcomes. In peer-reviewed clinical findings, two out of three patients saw their anxiety symptoms drop below clinically significant levels, and a similar portion experienced the same improvement with depression. Notably, one out of three patients achieved full remission in under 15-weeks. Among those who did not reach these thresholds, the vast majority still reported measurable improvement. Talkiatry is a physician-led practice where quality care comes first. Clinicians have the autonomy to make the best decisions for their patients, supported by structured clinical leadership, peer collaboration, and continuous education. To deliver these outcomes, Talkiatry has built an environment that prioritizes clinician support and sustainability. All clinicians receive structured onboarding, access to ongoing clinical education, and support from dedicated teams that handle scheduling, billing, and credentialing. Talkiatry is a community of like-minded, mission-driven peers. Through clinical chats, mentorship, grand rounds, and peer case consultations, the organization fosters connection, knowledge sharing, and a sense of belonging. "This recognition is a testament to the vital work the Talkiatry team is doing to expand access to high quality mental health care, regardless of a patient's geography or circumstance. Being named one of Modern Healthcare's 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives reinforces the importance of our mission, and I am incredibly grateful to be part of a movement that is transforming the way mental health care is delivered in this country." - Dr. Georgia Gaveras, Co-Founder & Chief Medical Officer, Talkiatry. For information or questions about the 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives program, please contact: MH Awards mhawards@ About Modern HealthcareModern Healthcare is the most trusted business news and information brand in the healthcare industry. Modern Healthcare empowers healthcare leaders and influencers to make timely and informed business decisions. To learn more or subscribe, go to About TalkiatryTalkiatry is a national mental health practice that provides in-network psychiatry and therapy. Co-founded by Robert Krayn and Georgia Gaveras, DO, Talkiatry is solving the core challenges patients and clinicians face in accessing and providing high-quality mental healthcare. With over 2 million patient visits delivered by a growing team of 600+ full-time psychiatrists and 150+ full-time therapists, Talkiatry is the largest dedicated psychiatry practice in the U.S. Our technology platform removes administrative burdens so clinicians can focus solely on patient care, resulting in strong clinical outcomes and significantly lower burnout. At Talkiatry, we're reimagining psychiatric care to be accessible, human, and responsible. Learn more at and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. Media Contactpress@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Talkiatry Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Researchers make troubling discovery about dangerous health issue with bus stops: 'Like an oven'
While transportation accounts for over 20% of planet-warming pollution, public transit reduces it and provides a more affordable and safe alternative for commuting. More than two-thirds of public transit users walk to transit stations, according to the American Public Transportation Association, but extreme temperatures can make getting to these stations difficult. Shelters at transit stations are designed to protect users from extreme temperatures and weather. However, a study at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston discovered some of these shelters worsen the problem, increasing temperatures and transit users' risk for heat stress. The study measured wet bulb globe temperature –– which combines air temperature, humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation –– in shaded and unshaded areas at bus stops in Houston. While shade reduced WBGT, one type of shelter increased temperatures. The ground in this type of shelter, when unshaded, was about 5 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the ground outside the shelter, the researchers discovered. These types of shelters contained aluminum frames and translucent acrylic walls, which "trapped radiation inside the shelter" and made them "like an oven," researcher Kevin Lanza said, per Hot temperatures at bus stops increase bus riders' risk for heat stress, which includes "a combination of factors, not just the temperature," according to Lanza, and can develop into life-threatening heat stroke.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
‘We're Just Becoming a Weapon of the State'
Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. Bhattacharya, the NIH, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants —originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, ' the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled
