
Late to Bed, Early to Die? Night Owls May Die Sooner - ryan_j_naughton
https://www.livescience.com/62282-night-owls-early-death.html
======
bunderbunder
_Evening people were at greater risk for certain health conditions, including
diabetes, psychological disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, neurological
disorders and respiratory conditions, the study found. But even after
accounting for these conditions, the study still found that evening people had
a slightly higher risk of dying during the study period, compared with morning
people._

Translation: There's probably some more confounding variables they haven't
found yet.

~~~
subcosmos
All of those illnesses are tied with circadian desynchrony problems. If you
screw with the clock gene in a mouse for example, or poke at the part of the
hypothalamus that controls sleep-wake cycles (the suprachiasmatic nucleus),
those mice will die early of heart disease and cancer.

Fun fact: one of the top genes associated with type-2 diabetes, for example,
is the melatonin receptor!

These are hardly confounds, but more end-points of diseases of aging, which
can be accelerated when the bodies homeostatic control of anabolism and
catabolism is broken.

In short, there is much that remains to be done to find the associations
between sleep architecture, aging, and human health outcomes.

[http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/11/1510.short](http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/11/1510.short)

[https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpheart.1998.275...](https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpheart.1998.275.6.h2334)

[https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1177](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1177)

~~~
macawfish
This is also why calcified pineal glands and fluoride poisoning may actually
be a big deal. Sadly, not enough serious researchers want to consider pineal
gland health.

I even saw one researcher who published one paper advocating global
fluoridation of community water supplies and another paper investigating
problems associated with melatonin deficiency. But they didn't have any papers
investigating the relationship between these.

In case you are curious, fluorine ions have an affinity for highly mineral
rich regions of the body, and easily precipitate calcium, which is why
fluoride is used for calcifying teeth. The pineal gland is the only organ in
the brain that is directly exposed to the bloodstream, and is a kind of
mineral sink. Pineal calcification is epidemic in adults, but is not popularly
considered a "disease." This organ is totally unappreciated by mainstream
"science based" medical culture.

The pineal gland is responsible for melatonin synthesis and harmonizing the
circadian rhythm. It has cells that communicate with light receptive cells in
the eye. Indeed, this organ evolved as a light sensitive organ. In many
animals, the pineal body is still directly light sensitive.

I have a very strong feeling that this important gland is being overlooked by
the medical establishment, but that it will be impossible to ignore its
importance in times to come.

Here's a little experiment you can do in your kitchen. Take some egg shells.
Boil them to sterilize them. Then crush them with a mortar into a fine powder.
Mix them with vinegar (acetic acid) to create a calcium salt (calcium
acetate). There will be bubbles as the acetate precipitates calcium. This
powder substance is a calcium salt which can be added to fluoridated water to
neutralize fluorine ions. The fluorine ions which will have a much stronger
affinity for the calcium than the acetate.

If someone is really good with chemistry, maybe they could figure out the
exact amounts needed to needed to adsorb all of the fluorine from a liter of
water!

~~~
jimrandomh
This is an interesting hypothesis, but your presentation of it is off in a way
that sets off my crackpot detector. If you can regenerate the components of
the argument with citations to reputable sources, it may be worth re-
presenting it somewhere with less editorializing. But any time you talk about
water fluoridation, you have to be very careful not to accidentally import
information from the web of schizophrenics-citing-schizophrenics that most
discussion of that topic comes from, and also to credibly signal that you're
being careful in that way.

~~~
macawfish
Okay, so I appreciate your willingness to take interest in the theory.

That said, to be perfectly honest, I'm offended by your use of both the words
"crackpot" and "schizophrenic". Essentially you're asking me to write a
literature review in order not to be considered "a crackpot" or
"schizophrenic". Schizophrenia and crack are both quite serious issues, so in
the first place I'm annoyed that these are considered to be normal derogatory
language for "rational" people to casually throw around. You're suggesting
that my comment is full of "editorializing", but then you go ahead and
demonstrate exactly the kind of dogmatic, biased language that charges me to
write in this way to begin with. I know you probably didn't mean harm, but
that is strong, derogatory language you're throwing around in the name of
science. Why?

If you're feeling open minded, check out the variety of articles here:
[http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/](http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/)

There are 232 pages of studies to dig through.

Some day I'd love to write a full article on the subject. But I have a feeling
that no matter how scientific it was, there would be a crowd so skeptical as
to be blind. Maybe that's cause their pineal glands are too far calcified ;p

------
Puer
I'm a primary insomniac, but I also have delayed sleep phase disorder so my
natural circadian rhythm is offset by a few hours. Regardless of light
exposure and regular routines I'll often find myself hitting peak sleepiness
in the late afternoon and then the early morning. Unfortunately, this isn't
exactly compatible with society's expectations of when I should be up and
about. I find it interesting (though I'm not surprised) that the article seems
to imply that even those who get enough sleep, just on an offset schedule,
still have greater rates of mortality. Sleeping disorders are often associated
with other significant issues in their own right so there's definitely a
degree of variable confounding.

~~~
tomxor
> I find it interesting (though I'm not surprised) that the article seems to
> imply that even those who get enough sleep, just on an offset schedule,
> still have greater rates of mortality.

They seemed to be suggesting that the offset is not a risk factor in itself,
more that it's incompatibility with society imposes external stresses that
contribute to increase chance of mortality. If that's true it no doubt varies
greatly between individuals, their profession, lifestyle and other general
interaction with the outside world - which all themselves will of course
contribute to different chances of mortality and health.

Full Disclosure: My morning is most peoples lunchtime. I get plenty of sleep
and am usually very well rested, but waking up out of sync can be quite
irritating and inconvenient once I am actually awake. Not to mention the
feeling of being "the lazy one" in spite of being quite a workaholic most of
the time.

------
pradn
There are a thousand of these health/nutrition articles every year, all
telling you that this or that has a small effect on your health and life.
Given how hard it is to reproduce these studies and how minimal the effects
are, I find it hard to care.

~~~
cgh
They are epidemiological and their goal isn't to really prove anything but to
generate new hypotheses and provide hints for directions of research based on
the correlations found. Unfortunately, the popular press doesn't tend to
distinguish between epidemiology and more rigorous double-blind studies.

------
hn0
tldr; Night Owls May Die Sooner *

(* when living in a morning person world)

~~~
frockington
The Obese May Die Sooner * (* when living in a skinny persons world)

It seems like the article was saying that a morning persons world is naturally
healthier, not that morning people are somehow afflicting non-morning people

~~~
lowbloodsugar
It said the exact opposite:

"The researchers said society needs to recognize that making night owls start
work early may not be good for their health."

------
smoyer
It's interesting to me that the ascribed the increase in mortality for night-
owls to the fact that their schedule doesn't mesh with societies expectations
- I suspect they'll also find that it's not good to have a sleep cycle that's
too out-of-sync with the daylight hours (we already know a lack of sunlight
during the winter hours affects some people and we use apps like F.Lux to dim
our screens to avoid tricking our minds with extra daylight frequencies).

------
chmaynard
Maybe, but odds are that they will have more fun and die happier than us early
birds. (No, I didn't read the article. :)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Or even, more waking hours total over their shorter span of years?

------
limeblack
As someone who has worked nightshift, I have heard it can cause cancer. It
doesn't look good for us.

[1]:
[https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312064.php](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312064.php)

~~~
baccheion
Is it due to not getting enough sunlight (vitamin D)?

------
baccheion
Adrenal burnout is associated with rising energy levels as the day progresses
(ie, one way to create a night owl) and a constant stress state.

NutrEval (include hormone panel) catches many imbalances/deficiencies. It can
almost be assumed vitamin D (+ K), vitamin E, and magnesium are low. Vitamin D
(+ K) strongly affects the pineal gland and melatonin release.

Resveratrol in the morning resets circadian rhythm, as does melatonin at
night.

If fixing deficiencies/imbalances does not "normalize" circadian rhythm, then
that's the natural rhythm and is something to work around.

------
StaticRedux
#MorningPeopleAreSmug

------
sv12l
Yet, nowhere in the article did they mention what time is their half-a-million
represents for a night owl, 11PM, 12AM, 1AM?

~~~
TetOn
Also seems to hinge on whether the participants "consider themselves" to be a
night-owl. If the effect is there, you should be able to stratify by, say,
regularly going to bed after 1am (or whatever). This doesn't seem to be that.

~~~
brlewis
Exactly. I think people categorize themselves relative to those around them.

 _At the beginning of the study period, participants were asked whether they
considered themselves to be morning people or evening people, or whether they
felt they fell somewhere in between those two groups._

------
m3kw9
Seem like a narrow minded study that found a consistent variable
coincidentally and pointing it out as the cause

------
lowbloodsugar
"The researchers said society needs to recognize that making night owls start
work early may not be good for their health."

It's not that being a night owl means you are going to die sooner, it's that a
society run by morning larks is detrimental to night owl health.

------
didibus
If you have a fringe behaviour on any dimensions, where you are unlike the
average, there are only two possibilities, you've evolved a superior trait, or
you've evolved an inferior trait.

I feel evolutionary wise, chances are higher that you've evolved an inferior
trait.

I am offset in my sleep, 3am to noon, and I need a minimum of 9hours to feel
rested, 10hour of sleep is ideal. Now to be honest, this doesn't sound like
the recipe to a superior trait, so I'm not too surprised if it ended up
costing me something like additional health issues later in life. Sadly :(

------
nomy99
interesting, maybe humans have a fixed bandwidth on "awake hours", and night
owls just burn through the stock quicker...

~~~
gnode
Studies have shown sleeping for longer also correlates with increased
mortality. Although I've not seen a study which establishes the causality of
this. It's plausible that people who are sleeping longer are doing it because
(potentially undiagnosed) diseases are making them lethargic, rather than
oversleeping causing disease.

I think a study would have to take a set of people and force sleeping habits
upon them for a significant length of time for the results to be meaningful
with regards to causality.

~~~
tomxor
> It's plausible that people who are sleeping longer are doing it because
> (potentially undiagnosed) diseases are making them lethargic

That was the main theory behind that correlation, it makes sense since healthy
people will naturally find it quite difficult to sleep longer than 8 hours (of
actual uninterrupted sleep). Some people will also sleep longer because of
issues affecting their quality of sleep (health or otherwise)

~~~
nomy99
There need not be a physical cause for excess sleep. Emotional disturbances or
drug use can also lead to mini escapades to the bedroom. This can cause your
body to adapt to a longer sleeping pattern; bypassing the pain of sleep
fatigue healthy people have.

~~~
truculation
That certainly seems to be the story with me -- not drugs, per se, but general
greediness and over-stimulation puts me on a ~24.5 hour cycle. When the mind
is making a lot of noise it's harder to get to sleep and it takes more sleep
to recover.

That said, I suspect there's no fundamental reason why a night owl can't
become a morning lark if he sincerely wants to.

------
teawrecks
I remember seeing this same conclusion from a study over 5 years ago. That one
also mistook correlation for causation.

------
aje403
“For example, some studies have shown that evening people are less likely to
eat a healthy diet and more likely to use substances such as alcohol and
illegal drugs, compared with morning people.”

Where can I acquire research funding? I have groundbreaking hypotheses I would
like to test such as “people who smile more are happier” or “people who have
high net worth are more likely to purchase expensive watches”. I am highly
qualified to pursue this research - I have a solid foundation in high school
statistics and took a freshman sociology course.

~~~
ivraatiems
What common sense would suggest is true very often doesn't align with what
research has found to actually _be_ true.

Don't take the world for granted. Don't assume you understand something just
because the answer seems obvious.

In fact, the example you gave - people who smile more are happier - is true,
but the _cause_ is possibly the opposite of what the sentence implies. Some
people are happy more _because_ they force themselves to smile; they're not
smiling because they're happy.[1]

[1] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smile-it-could-
ma...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smile-it-could-make-you-
happier/)

~~~
Bartweiss
On the other hand, throwing enough _p = .05_ studies at the world lets you
'learn' all sorts of unintuitive - and untrue - things.

That smiling/happiness result, for example, looks to be another casualty of
the replication crisis. [1] Could it be true? Maybe, but at the quality of
existing research it's not clear studying it was an improvement on intuition.
Checking our instincts with data is a good thing to do, but it's hardly a
silver bullet when searching for the truth.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/08/can_smiling_make_you_happier_maybe_maybe_not_we_have_no_idea.html)

~~~
imh
Those are two entirely separate questions. Poorly designed studies vs the
studies's subject matter.

------
jacquesm
By that reckoning I should have been long dead. Of course this is 'statistics'
and I'm just one individual but I do believe there are compensating factors.
If you're a night owl but you otherwise live a healthy life you could very
well outlive your early rising, smoking, hard-drinking cousin.

These overly simplistic conclusions from single cause to effect add up to
unrealistic expectations of what living like a saint could achieve. So far
nobody seems to have been able to beat 135 or so, and even that must be the
best way to spend a large chunk of your life terribly bored.

Playgrounds, home improvement, participating in traffic, working late ->
reduced life expectancy.

So, the best way to live a really long life is to be an early riser and to
never leave your house.

~~~
codingdave
I didn't read it as a direct cause and effect, as they were talking about a
10% increased chance of early death due to forcing their natural circadian
rhythm to match everyone else. And they even recommended letting night owls
have different schedules at work as one possible solution.

~~~
jacquesm
> I didn't read it as a direct cause and effect, as they were talking about a
> 10% increased chance of early death due to forcing their natural circadian
> rhythm to match everyone else.

Yes, that and about 100 or so factors the study did not control for. I really
have had quite enough of all these studies that indicate substantial effects
on your lifespan depending on some minor detail in your life and then some
marginally significant result. That and that for every study like that you can
probably find a counterpart. Ditto heart disease and cancer.

