Lots or Little Sleep Linked to Sick Days

Absence from work due to illness increased dramatically for those who slept less than six hours or more than nine hours per night. Christie Nicholson reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Shakespeare called sleep the chief nourisher in life’s feast. But today we know it’s so much more. Insufficient sleep contributes to the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. And now a study finds that too little or too much sleep are both associated with a significant increase in sick days away from work.

Almost 4,000 men and women between 30 and 64 years old (in Finland) participated in the study, which followed them for seven years. The research revealed that the absence from work due to illness increased dramatically for those who said they slept less than six hours or more than nine hours per night. The sleep time that was associated with the lowest number of sick days was seven hours 38 minutes for women and seven hours 46 minutes for men. The study is in the journal Sleep. [Tea Lallukka, Sleep and Sickness Absence: A Nationally Representative Register-Based Follow-Up Study]

Of course these findings are associative and not necessarily causal. Other factors may be responsible for the under- or oversleeping to begin with. But sleep patterns are still a warning sign for increased illness and health complications. Shakespeare put it best: Sleep…that knits up the ravell’d sleave of care.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe