Working long hours? It could be altering the structure of your brain
Long working hours might not just be bad for you, they could also be altering the structure of your brain, a new study suggests.
The research, published Tuesday, found 'significant changes' in the brains of people who were overworking, which is a combination of physical and emotional overexertion, as well as a lack of rest.
The research was conducted by two scientists at South Korea's Chung-Ang University and Yonsei University, who followed 110 healthcare workers classified into 'overworked' and 'non-overworked' groups.
In South Korea, where 52 hours of work per week is the legal upper limit, overworking has become a public health concern.
The overworked group, clocking 52 hours or more each week, consisted of 32 people who were on average younger, in employment for less time and more highly educated in comparison to those working standard hours.
By comparing data from a different study and MRI scans, the researchers were able to use a neuroimaging technique to analyse the workers' brain volume.
The technique allowed them to identify and compare differences in levels of gray matter in different regions of the brain, while the application of atlas-based analysis meant they could identify and label structures in brain scans.
'People who worked 52 or more hours a week displayed significant changes in brain regions associated with executive function and emotional regulation, unlike participants who worked standard hours,' researchers said in a press release.
Areas of the brain that showed an increase in volume include the middle frontal gyrus, which plays a major role in cognitive functions, attention, memory and language-related processes, as well as the insula, which is involved in emotional processing, self-awareness and understanding social context.
Researchers believe their findings suggest a 'potential relationship' between having an increased workload and changes in these parts of the brain, providing a biological basis for the cognitive and emotional challenges reported by people who are overworked.
Joon Yul Choi, coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Yonsei University's Department of Biomedical Engineering, told CNN that these changes might be 'at least in part, reversible' if environmental stressors are reversed. Still, returning to your brain's baseline state could take much longer.
Previous research has also found evidence of the negative health impacts of long working hours. In 2021, joint research from the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that overworking led to more than 745,000 deaths in a year. Long hours have also been found to raise the risk of diabetes in women and contribute to a decline in cognitive ability.
While these behavioral and psychological consequences of overwork are well-known, the underlying neurological mechanisms and changes in anatomy are less understood, the study explained.
Frank Pega, who led the WHO-ILO 2021 study, told CNN that these latest findings constitute 'important new evidence' that could help better understand how long working hours 'radically' impact the physical health of workers.
Pega, a WHO technical officer who was not involved in this latest study, said the research supports WHO-ILO's findings that 'long working hours contribute the largest burden of disease of all occupational risk factors identified so far.'
However, the study's small sample size and focus only on healthcare workers in South Korea makes it hard to generalize its results. 'More studies in different populations are needed,' said Pega.
'While the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the exploratory nature of this pilot study, they represent a meaningful first step in understanding the relationship between overwork and brain health,' said the researchers.
As for anyone stuck working long hours? Now you might have a scientific basis to cut down on your time at work.
'Governments, employers, and workers can all take actions to protect workers' health from long working hours,' advised Pega, citing laws, regulations and policies that can ensure healthy work hours.
'The results underscore the importance of addressing overwork as an occupational health concern,' said the study's authors.
Jonny Gifford, principal research fellow at the Institute for Employment Studies in Brighton, England, who was not involved in the study, told CNN that the research 'confirms some physiological reasons that working long hours affects our wellbeing.'
'The use of brain scanning equipment to give neurological explanations gives powerful new evidence linking overwork with structural changes in parts of the brain involved in executive function and emotional regulation,' he said.
'It's a small study of 110 healthcare workers in Korea, but because it is based on robust neurological measures and concerns fundamental mechanisms (overwork and fatigue) that can affect anyone, the central findings are widely relevant,' Gifford added.
The study was published in the journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
CNN's Jack Guy contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
How your AI prompts could harm the environment
AI Sustainability Climate change EconomyFacebookTweetLink Follow Sign up for CNN's Life, But Greener newsletter. Our limited newsletter series guides you on how to minimize your personal role in the climate crisis — and reduce your eco-anxiety. Whether it's answering work emails or drafting wedding vows, generative artificial intelligence tools have become a trusty copilot in many people's lives. But a growing body of research shows that for every problem AI solves, hidden environmental costs are racking up. Each word in an AI prompt is broken down into clusters of numbers called 'token IDs' and sent to massive data centers — some larger than football fields — powered by coal or natural gas plants. There, stacks of large computers generate responses through dozens of rapid calculations. The whole process can take up to 10 times more energy to complete than a regular Google search, according to a frequently cited estimation by the Electric Power Research Institute. So, for each prompt you give AI, what's the damage? To find out, researchers in Germany tested 14 large language model (LLM) AI systems by asking them both free-response and multiple-choice questions. Complex questions produced up to six times more carbon dioxide emissions than questions with concise answers. In addition, 'smarter' LLMs with more reasoning abilities produced up to 50 times more carbon emissions than simpler systems to answer the same question, the study reported. 'This shows us the tradeoff between energy consumption and the accuracy of model performance,' said Maximilian Dauner, a doctoral student at Hochschule München University of Applied Sciences and first author of the Frontiers in Communication study published Wednesday. Typically, these smarter, more energy intensive LLMs have tens of billions more parameters — the biases used for processing token IDs — than smaller, more concise models. 'You can think of it like a neural network in the brain. The more neuron connections, the more thinking you can do to answer a question,' Dauner said. Complex questions require more energy in part because of the lengthy explanations many AI models are trained to provide, Dauner said. If you ask an AI chatbot to solve an algebra question for you, it may take you through the steps it took to find the answer, he said. 'AI expends a lot of energy being polite, especially if the user is polite, saying 'please' and 'thank you,'' Dauner explained. 'But this just makes their responses even longer, expending more energy to generate each word.' For this reason, Dauner suggests users be more straightforward when communicating with AI models. Specify the length of the answer you want and limit it to one or two sentences, or say you don't need an explanation at all. Most important, Dauner's study highlights that not all AI models are created equally, said Sasha Luccioni, the climate lead at AI company Hugging Face, in an email. Users looking to reduce their carbon footprint can be more intentional about which model they chose for which task. 'Task-specific models are often much smaller and more efficient, and just as good at any context-specific task,' Luccioni explained. If you are a software engineer who solves complex coding problems every day, an AI model suited for coding may be necessary. But for the average high school student who wants help with homework, relying on powerful AI tools is like using a nuclear-powered digital calculator. Even within the same AI company, different model offerings can vary in their reasoning power, so research what capabilities best suit your needs, Dauner said. When possible, Luccioni recommends going back to basic sources — online encyclopedias and phone calculators — to accomplish simple tasks. Putting a number on the environmental impact of AI has proved challenging. The study noted that energy consumption can vary based on the user's proximity to local energy grids and the hardware used to run AI partly why the researchers chose to represent carbon emissions within a range, Dauner said. Furthermore, many AI companies don't share information about their energy consumption — or details like server size or optimization techniques that could help researchers estimate energy consumption, said Shaolei Ren, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of California, Riverside who studies AI's water consumption. 'You can't really say AI consumes this much energy or water on average — that's just not meaningful. We need to look at each individual model and then (examine what it uses) for each task,' Ren said. One way AI companies could be more transparent is by disclosing the amount of carbon emissions associated with each prompt, Dauner suggested. 'Generally, if people were more informed about the average (environmental) cost of generating a response, people would maybe start thinking, 'Is it really necessary to turn myself into an action figure just because I'm bored?' Or 'do I have to tell ChatGPT jokes because I have nothing to do?'' Dauner said. Additionally, as more companies push to add generative AI tools to their systems, people may not have much choice how or when they use the technology, Luccioni said. 'We don't need generative AI in web search. Nobody asked for AI chatbots in (messaging apps) or on social media,' Luccioni said. 'This race to stuff them into every single existing technology is truly infuriating, since it comes with real consequences to our planet.' With less available information about AI's resource usage, consumers have less choice, Ren said, adding that regulatory pressures for more transparency are unlikely to the United States anytime soon. Instead, the best hope for more energy-efficient AI may lie in the cost efficacy of using less energy. 'Overall, I'm still positive about (the future). There are many software engineers working hard to improve resource efficiency,' Ren said. 'Other industries consume a lot of energy too, but it's not a reason to suggest AI's environmental impact is not a problem. We should definitely pay attention.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Your Brain Emits a Secret Light That Scientists Are Trying to Read
Many of Earth's critters have the ability to emit a visible glow, but humans aren't usually considered among their number. This may not be entirely correct. Going all the way back to 1923, a number of studies have found humans luminesce in frequencies that would be visible if they weren't too faint for us to actually see. From the moment of conception until we shuffle off this mortal coil, we literally shine. It's controversial, absolutely, but it's possible that detecting these 'biophotons' could tell us a thing or two about what takes place beneath our skin. In a new study, a team of researchers led by biologist Hayley Casey of Algoma University in Canada has investigated the extremely weak glow of one lump of tissue in particular: the brain that resides inside the skull of every living human. They carefully recorded the faint glow of the human brain from outside the skull, and found that it changes according to what the brain is doing. This, they say, offers an exciting new possibility for gauging brain health: a yet-to-be-developed technique they call photoencephalography. "As the first proof-of-concept demonstration that ultraweak photon emissions (UPEs) from human brains can serve as readouts to track functional states, we measured and characterized photon counts over the heads of participants while they rested or engaged in an auditory perception task," they write in their paper. "We demonstrated that brain-derived UPE signals can be distinguished from background photon measures. Additionally, our results suggest that for a given task, the UPE count may reach a stable value." Everything in the Universe with a temperature higher than absolute zero – humans included – emits a type of infrared radiation called thermal radiation. When we talk about UPEs, it is a distinct phenomenon from thermal radiation. UPEs are emitted in near-visible to visible wavelength bands, and are the result of electrons emitting photons as they lose energy, a normal by-product of metabolism. Casey and her colleagues sought to conclusively distinguish brain UPEs from background radiation, and determine whether these UPEs exhibit patterns consistent with different levels of brain activity. They placed each of their study participants in a dark room. An electroencephalography (EEG) cap was placed on the participant's head to monitor their brain activity, and photomultiplier tubes were positioned around them to record any light emissions. These are extremely sensitive vacuum tubes that can detect even the very faintest light. Then, the participants were recorded at rest, and performing sound-based tasks (so they could do them in the dark). The results showed not just that UPEs are real and measurable even from outside the participants' heads – there was also a clear correlation between UPE output and the activity registered by the EEG cap. Future work, the researchers say, could delve into how neuroanatomy might impact UPE output, as well as how different activities manifest in patterns of UPEs, rather than just the two states of brain rest and brain activity. We also don't know if each individual has a UPE 'fingerprint' that would need to be recorded as a baseline against which to measure anomalous activity. "We view the current results as a proof-of-concept demonstration that patterns of human-brain-derived UPE signals can be discriminated from background light signals in darkened settings despite very low relative signal intensity," the researchers write. "Future studies may find success in using select filters and amplifiers to sieve and enhance UPE signal features from healthy and diseased brains." The paper has been published in Current Biology. Parkinson's Discovery Suggests We Could Have an FDA-Approved Treatment Already Microplastics Have a Concerning Effect on The Microbes in Our Gut Something in Your Poop May Predict an Imminent Death
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cannabis Linked to 2x Risk of Heart Disease Death, Scientists Discover
New research suggests that cannabis use is linked to twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, and is also associated with increased risk of other major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Cannabis is being legalized in more and more places worldwide, increasing medicinal and recreational use – but it may warrant closer monitoring by health professionals. The researchers here, led by a team from the University of Toulouse in France, wanted to look more closely at potential health risks that had previously been flagged. They looked at 24 previous studies published between 2016 and 2023, involving around 200 million people. Overall, the increased risk linked to cannabis use was 29 percent for acute coronary syndrome (reduced blood flow to the heart), 20 percent for strokes, and 100 percent for cardiovascular disease mortality. "The findings reveal positive associations between cannabis use and MACE," write the researchers in their published paper. "These findings should encourage investigating cannabis use in all patients presenting with serious cardiovascular disorders." There are some limitations worth bearing in mind here. The studies included in the research differed in terms of how they defined cannabis use, relied on self-reporting, and didn't measure use of the drug over time. That makes them less statistically robust. The research also notes a high risk of bias in the majority of studies investigated, due to the way they were structured. And it's important to say the research doesn't show direct cause and effect, only an association. It's possible that other factors not considered here are driving both cannabis use and heart health issues in certain groups of people. Nevertheless, the large number of people surveyed on their real-world use of cannabis counts in the study's favor. It also has more recent data than many other studies, and we know that cannabis use and composition is changing over time. That's enough to warrant deeper investigation into the possible health risks. "Legalizing the drug and expanding its medical use worldwide have likely contributed to profound changes in the general perception of cannabis and to the overall rise in cannabis consumption," write the researchers. "Consequently, users' profiles and consumption habits profoundly differ from those in the 2010s, especially as cannabis products show an increasing trend in potency, with rising concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)." Further research is absolutely needed here, not least to determine whether the chemicals and compounds in cannabis – of which there are hundreds – could be leading to these health risks, and how taking cannabis in different forms, such as inhalables or edibles, might have an influence. Previous studies have already shown how the drug can increase the risk of cancer, and significantly alter our DNA, for example. Cannabis could also trigger psychosis through the impact it has on the brain. The new study is accompanied by an editorial written by epidemiologists Stanton Glanz and Lynn Silver, from the University of California San Francisco. In it, Glanz and Silver argue that as cannabis use rises, more should be done to educate people about the risks – as has been done with cigarettes. "Specifically, cannabis should be treated like tobacco: not criminalized but discouraged, with protection of bystanders from secondhand exposure," they write. The research has been published in the journal Heart. 5 Daily Habits Could Be Causing Your Liver Serious Harm FDA-Approved Sleeping Pill Slows Alzheimer's Tangles in Pre-Clinical Trial Risk of Sleep Breathing Disorder Set to Rise 45% by End of Century
