Night Shifts May Raise Your Asthma Risk—If You're a Woman
Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that often causes sudden and intense shortness of breath. The disease impacts around 339 million people worldwide, and in the U.S. nine people on average die from asthma every day.
Researchers in the U.K. have found that women who work night shifts are more likely to have moderate or severe asthma than women who work during the day. The study, published Monday in the journal ERJ Open Research, does not reveal any such tendency in men working nightshifts, and could hold important implications for public health guidance.
The team had previously shown that permanent night shift workers in general are more likely to suffer from moderate-severe asthma compared to day workers. Scientists also know that asthma is more prevalent and severe in adult women than adult men. 'Since increasing numbers of females are becoming shift workers it is important to determine if shift work-associated asthma risk is higher in females,' the researchers wrote in the study. Shift work refers to scheduled working periods that fall outside of traditional daytime hours. 'Our main aim was to investigate sex differences in the association between shift work and asthma.'
The researchers did so by analyzing data belonging to over 274,541 working people from the U.K. Biobank, a biomedical database open to health researchers. From this initial pool, they found that 5.3% had asthma, and 1.9% of those had moderate or severe asthma. The team then looked into whether the people in these categories worked during the day, during nightshifts, or a mix of both.
The researchers found that female shift workers in general are more likely to suffer from asthma, and women who only work nightshifts have 50% higher likelihood of developing moderate or severe asthma than female daytime workers. Furthermore, the risk increases 'with both number of monthly night shifts and longer lifetime duration of night shift work,' they explained. Interestingly, the data did not reveal any differences in the prevalence of asthma in men based on their work schedule.
'This type of research cannot explain why shift work and asthma are linked,' Robert Maidstone, a co-author of the study and a researcher at the University of Manchester's School of Biological Sciences, said in a university statement. 'However, it could be because shift work disrupts the body clock, including the levels of male and female sex hormones. High testosterone has previously been shown to be protective against asthma, and so lower testosterone in women could play a role. Alternatively, men and women work different types of shift jobs, and this could be a factor.'
Among women not taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT, a treatment for menopausal symptoms), postmenopausal women working only night shifts were almost twice as likely to have moderate-severe asthma than female day workers. This suggests that HRT might protect nightshift workers from asthma, though the researchers admit that more studies are needed to confirm this.
'This research suggests that working nightshifts could be a risk factor for asthma in women, but not in men. The majority of workers will not have an easy option of switching their shift pattern, so we need further research to verify and understand this link and find out what could be done to reduce the risk for women who work shifts,' explained Florence Schleich from the European Respiratory Society, who was not involved in the study.
Moving forward, the researchers aim to investigate how sex hormones might influence asthma prevalence among shift workers. Perhaps this line of research will also shed light on what drives the respiratory disease, given that the exact cause remains a mystery.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The healthiest cornflakes and the ones to avoid
Back in 1969, Neil Armstrong's one small step for man was fuelled by one big bowl of cornflakes, according to Kellogg's, who sent cubes of their cereal into orbit for his Apollo 11 trip to the moon. The cereal was already a favourite back on firmer ground in Britain, having been a staple on supermarket shelves since 1922 – and it's still going strong today. Around 60 million boxes are produced in the UK every year – and that's for Kellogg's alone. Despite the rise of smashed avocado on toast and fancy Greek yogurt and berries, a bowl of simple cereal remains the go-to breakfast for around a quarter of the population, providing around half of fibre intake for the average adult, according to the latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey. But how healthy is the perennially popular breakfast? 'Cornflakes are generally low in fat and calories and often fortified with vitamins and minerals, such as iron and B vitamins, which is a positive,' says Nichola Ludlam-Raine, a nutritionist and author of How Not to Eat Ultra-Processed (£16.99, Telegraph Books). 'However, they are also fairly low in fibre and protein, and some versions contain added sugars.' Plus not all cornflakes are equal, so it's important to choose your box wisely. It's for this reason that we gathered the nutritional information and ingredients for 10 different types of cornflakes – from the classic Kellogg's to an 88p box from Aldi – and asked our nutritionist to rate them based on their nutritional values. Although each box has near identical calorie counts (from 111 to 118 per 30g portion), as well as fat and protein levels, Ludlam-Raine sifted through the sugar, fibre and salt content to unpick the best from the worst. Skip to: Nestlé Sainsbury's M&S Kellogg's Tesco (Free From) Waitrose Aldi Asda Tesco Lidl The main ingredient in cornflakes is, unsurprisingly, corn, but they also contain barley, which is a source of gluten. This gluten-free option, made without barley, is high in sugar, with 2.6g per 30g portion, making them more sugary than Kellogg's. 'These have the highest sugar content on the list, still fortified and gluten-free, but worth noting if keeping sugar intake low is a priority,' Ludlam-Raine says. The original Kellogg's cornflakes is not the healthiest as it contains 2.4g of sugar per 30g portion (0.7g more than the top-ranked cornflakes). 'It's higher in sugar than supermarket own brands, though well fortified,' Ludlam-Raine notes. It is also one of the highest in salt, with 0.34g per 30g portion. This organic cereal from Sainsbury's contains 0.6g of sugar per 30g portion, around a third of the sugar found in most other own-brand cornflakes. However, as it is organic, it is not fortified, Ludlam-Raine notes. It's a good option if you're trying to reduce your sugar intake but it won't offer the vitamins and minerals that many people are lacking in, such as vitamin D, adds Alison Clark, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association. Part of the M&S range made with few ingredients, the one-ingredient cornflakes contain only corn and naturally-occurring sugars. As a result, they are the lowest sugar cornflakes from major supermarkets, with 0.2g per 30g portion. However, their ranking has been nudged down because they are not fortified. 'This option is good if you're specifically looking to avoid sugar, but lacks the micronutrient benefits of fortified options,' Ludlam-Raine says. This gluten-free option from Tesco has a similar calorie and fat level to standard cornflakes but is higher in sugar (2g per 30g) than most other options. However, it is also higher in fibre (1.2g) and lower in salt (0.08g) than other cornflakes. 'This is a good gluten-free option with moderate sugar content and full fortification – a strong choice for those with dietary needs,' Ludlam-Raine says. Waitrose Essential cornflakes contain slightly higher sugar than the option from Aldi (2g per 30g) but have a bit more fibre (0.8g per 30g). 'It is still a reasonable choice with fortification,' she says. The cornflakes from Aldi contain a slightly higher amount of sugar (1.9g per 30g) and they're also lower in fibre, with 0.5g compared to the 0.8g found in most of the other supermarket own brand versions. 'But the sugar level is still low overall and the cereal is fully fortified,' Ludlame-Raine notes. 'This option from Asda is comparable to other supermarket own-brand offerings, low in sugar (1.8g per 30g) and fully fortified – a good choice,' Ludlam-Raine says. The cornflakes from Tesco contain slightly more sugar (1.8g per 30g) than the top-ranked cornflakes, but less than most options on this list, with 1.8g per 30g serving. 'This is a good low-sugar option from Tesco, with full fortification,' Ludlam-Raine says. It's the Crownfield Corn Flakes from Lidl that come out on top, according to Ludlam-Raine. They are low in sugar, containing 1.7g per 30g portion, she notes. This is the lowest out of all other options, apart from M&S Only 1 Ingredient cornflakes, which are not fortified. As these are fortified with vitamins, they are the best choice. The portion size listed on the box of cornflakes, and other cereals, is 30g. But pour out your usual bowl and weigh it for a shock on how little 30g is. 'In reality, many adults naturally pour a larger portion (closer to 40–50g),' Ludlam-Raine confirms. Rather than greed, most adults will need more than a 30g portion to not only keep them full but provide enough nutrients, as cornflakes are low in fibre and protein, she explains. 'If you want a larger portion, that's OK, especially if you're quite active – but be mindful of balancing it by adding protein fibre, and healthy fats.' Obviously, milk is the first addition to start with. Around 150ml to 250ml is a good guide, as it's enough to moisten and cover the flakes, but the exact amount you choose to add depends on preference and if you are drinking more milk later in the day, she notes. Choosing semi-skimmed or whole milk will provide protein and fat to support fullness, or you could try combining your flakes with Greek yoghurt or kefir (a fermented milk drink) for extra protein and gut-friendly probiotics, Ludlam-Raine says. 'Unsweetened fortified plant-based milks (such as soya or pea milk) can also be good options, as they provide protein and contain added calcium and vitamin D (note that organic versions do not have nutrients added),' she says. 'We use fortified oat milk at home.' For toppings, she recommends fresh fruit such as berries, sliced banana or grated apple and pear for extra minerals, fibre and natural sweetness. A small handful of nuts or seeds, for example chia seeds, flaxseeds or almonds, will add even more healthy fat, protein and fibre. It will benefit your health to add these top-up ingredients if you're regularly having cornflakes for breakfast, as, on its own, cornflakes are too low in protein and fibre to keep us sufficiently fuelled for the morning. 'It can be fine as part of a more complete breakfast if you add other foods for example fruit, nuts and kefir,' Ludlam-Raine adds. Cornflakes are low in calories and fat, making them healthier than many other types of cereal, like sugar-coated Frosties (which are one-third sugar, containing 11g per serving, compared to the 0.2g to 2.6g in cornflakes) or granola, which despite appearing healthy, are often very high in calories, fat and sugar, Ludlam-Raine says. Saying that, there are healthier cereals. Shredded wheat, for example, has no added sugar and is high in fibre, Ludlam-Raine notes. 'Weetabix too is good as it's high in fibre and fortified with nutrients,' she says. 'These are cereals which can be added to easily too – from different milks to fruits and nuts too.' For a healthier everyday breakfast that isn't cereal, she recommends porridge oats with milk, fruit and seeds; wholegrain toast with nut butter and fruit; Greek yoghurt with fruit, seeds and muesli; and wholegrain cereals with a good fibre content, mixed with fruit and seeds. 'These options provide more lasting energy, better support blood sugar control and help meet your fibre needs, which many people (over 90 per cent) in the UK fall short on,' Ludlam-Raine says. 'Cornflakes can form part of a healthy breakfast, but on their own they aren't the most balanced choice,' Ludlam-Raine says. 'They are low in fibre and protein, meaning they may not keep you full for very long, which can lead to impulse or excessive snacking later in the morning.' Clark agrees. 'I wouldn't recommend cornflakes as a healthy cereal due to the low fibre content,' she says. While most options are fortified with vitamins, this is the case for most cereals so it doesn't make cornflakes especially healthy, she adds. 'If you enjoy cornflakes, choose those that are fortified with added nutrients,' Ludlam-Raine adds. 'Pair them with a protein source (such as milk or kefir, yoghurt and nuts) and fibre (fruit and seeds),' for an extra health boost. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why the summer solstice is a ‘celestial starting gun' for trees
For millennia, the summer solstice has marked a pivotal moment in the human calendar – a turning point steeped in mythology, when the oak king is said to yield to the holly king, and the days begin to shorten. Now, science is increasingly revealing that trees really do respond to this celestial shift, with changes in their growth and reproductive strategies occuring immediately after the calendar's longest day. A study gives fresh insights into why this happens, with implications for how forests might adapt to changing climates. Although it has long been known that plants use daylight to cue seasonal activities such as leaf growth, botanists have recently begun to question whether the summer solstice itself, which occurs between 20 and 22 June in the northern hemisphere, could act as a celestial 'starting gun' for certain events. Last year, researchers led by Prof Michał Bogdziewicz at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland discovered that, regardless of where in Europe beech trees live, they abruptly open a temperature-sensing window on the solstice, using it to decide how many seeds to manufacture the following year. If it is warm in the days after the solstice, they will produce more flower buds the following spring, leading to a bumper crop of beech nuts in the autumn. But if it's cool they might produce none – a phenomenon known as masting. 'The window of temperature sensitivity opens at the solstice and remains open for about 30 to 40 days. There is no other phenomenon that could so tightly anchor beech trees all across Europe at exactly the same time,' Bogdziewicz said. Swiss researchers also recently discovered that trees in temperate horthern hemisphere forests seemingly switch their growth strategy at around the solstice: warm temperatures before this date accelerate the ageing of their leaves, whereas warm temperatures after it slow down this process. This means it takes longer for their leaves to turn brown in the autumn, maximising their ability to photosynthesise and grow when conditions are favourable. The latest study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides a fresh insight into the relationship between trees and the summer solstice. Dr Victor Van der Meersch and Dr Elizabeth Wolkovich at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, analysed 1,000 years of temperature records across Europe and North America, combining them with future climate projections. Their findings suggest that trees reach their thermal optimum – the temperature range where their physiological processes hum most efficiently – around the summer solstice. Remarkably, this peak has remained stable across centuries. 'In Spain the optimal period is slightly earlier, and in Scandinavia it is slightly later – on average across Europe and North America, the summer solstice seems to be an optimal time for plants to make decisions,' Van der Meersch said. 'This was quite surprising because the warmest days are usually in July or August – they are not around the summer solstice.' If the solstice consistently coincides with peak growing conditions, it could make evolutionary sense for plants to use it as a cue – especially since this thermal sweet spot appears to have held steady across time. 'Plants are always trying to find a balance between risk and opportunities,' Van der Meersch explained. 'The further they go into the growing season, the easier it is for them to know if it's a good growing year or a bad one – but there's also less time left to use this information.' The solstice seems to represent a critical juncture in this decision-making process. 'It makes sense for them to switch between one growth strategy or another at this time.' However, the question of whether they are sensing the change in day length, or a coincidental sweet spot in temperature, remains open. While researchers like Bogdziewicz are exploring how trees detect changes in day length at around the solstice, Van der Meersch thinks temperature may be playing a larger role than previously appreciated. 'Rather than sensing the solstice, perhaps what really matters are the temperature accumulation patterns at around this time,' he said. However, because there is a strong correlation between temperature and day length, 'we need a lot more research to disentangle these complex signals',' he added. 'It is also possible that they rely on a combination of both summer solstice and thermal cues to optimise growth and reproductive timing.' Understanding the mechanism is important, because it could have implications for how forests adapt to the climate crisis. 'If plants are using warmth signals rather than day length this might be a good thing, because they could have a better ability to adapt to local environmental conditions,' Van der Meersch said. 'If they are relying on day length, the solstice will always be fixed to around 21 June, so there is less flexibility.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
This is your brain on ChatGPT
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Sizzle. Sizzle. That's the sound of your neurons frying over the heat of a thousand GPUs as your generative AI tool of choice cheerfully churns through your workload. As it turns out, offloading all of that cognitive effort to a robot as you look on in luxury is turning your brain into a couch potato. That's what a recently published (and yet to be peer-reviewed) paper from some of MIT's brightest minds suggests, anyway. The study examines the "neural and behavioral consequences" of using LLMs (Large Language Models) like ChatGPT for, in this instance, essay writing. The findings raise serious questions about how long-term use of AI might affect learning, thinking, and memory. More worryingly, we recently witnessed it play out in real life. The study, titled: Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task, involved 54 participants split into three groups: LLM group: Instructed to complete assignments using only ChatGPT, and no other websites or tools. Search engine group: Allowed to use any website except LLMs, even AI-enhanced answers were forbidden. Brain-only group: Relying only on their own knowledge. Across three sessions, these groups were tasked with writing an essay about one of three changing topics. An example of the essay question for the topic of "Art" was: "Do works of art have the power to change people's lives?" Participants then had 20 minutes to answer the question related to their chosen topic in essay form, all while wearing an Enobio headset to collect EEG signals from their brain. In a fourth session, LLM and Brain-only groups were swapped to measure any potential lasting impact of prior sessions. The results? Across the first three tests, Brain-only writers had the most active, widespread brain engagement during the task, while LLM-assisted writers showed the lowest levels of brain activity across the board (although routinely completed the task fastest). Search engine-assisted users generally fell somewhere in between the two. In short, Brain-only writers were actively engaging with the assignment, producing more creative and unique writing while actually learning. They were able to quote their essays afterwards and felt strong ownership of their work. Alternatively, LLM users engaged less over each session, began to uncritically rely on ChatGPT more as the study went on, and felt less ownership of the results. Their work was judged to be less unique, and participants often failed to accurately quote from their own work, suggesting reduced long-term memory formation. Researchers referred to this phenomenon as "metacognitive laziness" — not just a great name for a Prog-Rock band, but also a perfect label for the hazy distance between autopilot and Copilot, where participants disengage and let the AI do the thinking for them. But it was the fourth session that yielded the most worrying results. According to the study, when the LLM and Brain-only group traded places, the group that previously relied on AI failed to bounce back to pre-LLM levels tested before the study. To put it simply, sustained use of AI tools like ChatGPT to "help" with tasks that require critical thinking, creativity, and cognitive engagement may erode our natural ability to access those processes in the future. But we didn't need a 206-page study to tell us that. On June 10, an outage lasting over 10 hours saw ChatGPT users cut off from their AI assistant, and it provoked a disturbing trend of people openly admitting, sans any hint of awareness, that without access to OpenAI's chatbot, they'd suddenly forgotten how to work, write, or function. This study may have used EEG caps and grading algorithms to prove it, but most of us may already be living its findings. When faced with an easy or hard path, many of us would assume that only a particularly smooth-brained individual would willingly take the more difficult, obtuse route. However, as this study claims, the so-called easy path may be quietly sanding down our frontal lobes in a lasting manner — at least when it comes to our use of AI. That's especially frightening when you think of students, who are adopting these tools en masse, with OpenAI itself pushing for wider embrace of ChatGPT in education as part of its mission to build "an AI-Ready Workforce." A 2023 study conducted by revealed that a third of U.S. college students surveyed used ChatGPT for schoolwork during the 2022/23 academic year. In 2024, a survey from the Digital Education Council claimed that 86% of students across 16 countries use artificial intelligence in their studies to some degree. AI's big sell is productivity, the promise that we can get more done, faster. And yes, MIT researchers have previously concluded that AI tools can boost worker productivity by up to 15%, but the long-term impact suggests codependency over competency. And that sounds a lot like regression. At least for the one in front of the computer. Sizzle. Sizzle. Is Microsoft misleading users about Copilot? New claims point the finger at AI productivity Why OpenAI engineers are turning down $100 million from Meta, according to Sam Altman Google's latest Gemini 2.5 models are its biggest response to ChatGPT yet — and they're already live
