They're called many things -- "lazy," "unproductive," "lacking in ambition" -- but late risers are starting to fight back. Long the butt of demeaning office jokes, sleepyheads are officially up in arms thanks to a Danish campaign to stop "the tyranny of early risers."
"The Owl has the right to say: `Give me the late riser's rhythm at work, at home and in society,'" trumpets the B-Society Web site, a movement rallying against the Danish 8am to 4pm working culture.
"Let me come to work at 11am and go home at 8pm. Let me have quiet mornings to read my newspaper and ease into the day gently and peacefully," the society says on its Web site.
It may sound far-fetched, but the B-Society has packed quite a punch in Denmark, attracting around 4,800 members in only four months.
Copenhagen City Council is preparing jobs for "chronic late risers" and Carina Christensen, the Danish minister for family affairs, has thrown her weight behind the campaign, saying: "We all live better if our existence is not constantly dictated by an alarm clock."
"We've had tremendous success," agrees B-Society founder Camilla Kring, who has a doctorate in work and life balance.
"We now have a B-high school, with classes starting at noon. Sweden has its own movement, Finland and Norway should soon follow, and there's been huge global interest," she said.
According to Kring, an individual's preference for early rising (an A-person, or lark) and late rising (a B-person, or owl) is as genetically determined as eye or hair color. And, she said, far from the stereotyping of people who can't get out of bed in the morning as lazy sods, it's all down to different circadian rhythms.
"B-people find it easy to stay awake at night, preferring to go to bed at around 1am or 2am, but have difficulty waking in the morning, not feeling fully awake until after 10am," Kring said. "A-people are the opposite -- they love the mornings but collapse in front of the TV at about 10pm."
A convenient excuse to ignore the alarm clock and snuggle under the covers perhaps, but sleep experts agree Kring has a point. Researchers believe that 10 percent of people are extreme owls, 10 percent are extreme larks and the remaining 80 percent fall in between. And according to experts, it's genes, not laziness, that count.
Scientists have long known that early and late risers have genetic differences.
One study from the University of Surrey found that extreme larks are more likely to have a long version of a gene called Period 3, while extreme owls are more likely to have a shorter version, leading to physiological differences.
Angela Clow from the University of Westminster in London found that early risers had higher levels of cortisol, the body's main stress hormone, than the alarm-clock refuseniks.
"Personally I think this is better for you," she said, citing a link between high cortisol levels and greater powers of concentration. "But because cortisol is a stress hormone, some scientists think early rising puts the body under greater stress."
A German research team, Peter Axt and Michaela Axt- Gadermann, subscribe to that point of view. In The Joy of Laziness: How to Slow Down and Live Longer, they argue that these higher cortisol levels can damage brain cells and lead to premature senility. Lazy lie-ins, they say, are the key to good health.
Clow's research showed that over 10 weeks, early risers were more likely to suffer from aches, colds and headaches. Meanwhile, a Southampton University study found that those who burned the midnight oil and slept in the following day were no less healthy than the early risers. In fact, they were slightly wealthier.
So why is our work culture biased towards the rhythms of the average lark? Isn't that all a bit "sleepist"?
Carolyn Schur, author of the night owl's bible, Birds of a Feather, thinks so. Now self-employed, she spent years in the workplace struggling to cope with early appointments.
"I've been called lazy, undisciplined and unprofessional. I was even told I had a psychological problem. I tried to change but just grew more stressed," she said.
At her clinic in Saskatoon, Canada, Schur treats people with insomnia-related problems who, instead of being actual insomniacs, are what she calls "desynchronized night owls", unable to get the sleep they need in a nine-to-five schedule.
"If you're a night owl who needs nine hours' sleep, you won't survive," she said.
Experts agree that we generally need seven to eight hours of sleep, but this varies.
"Some people need less than six, and some more than 10. We don't need it all in one go; napping can help," said Adrian Williams, consultant physician at St Thomas's Hospital sleep disorder center.
According to Williams, sleep deprivation can seriously affect one's judgment, a view backed up by research. One such study, conducted at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, examined volunteers playing a computer card game, and showed that sleep deprivation causes areas of the brain to malfunction, making people blunder and take rash risks.
"We all carry a sleep debt," said Derk Jan Dijk, sleep and physiology director at the University of Surrey's sleep research center, "and this debt accumulates the longer we skimp on sleep. One night without sleep impairs you to the same degree that drinking alcohol to the legal driving limit does."
All of which paints a bleak picture for an owl struggling in a nine-to-five job. So what should sleep-deprived employees do?
"The first thing is to take your sleeping rhythm seriously," Schur said. "Ask your employer if you can work more flexible hours. State the benefits for the company; say you can provide increased hours of service at no extra cost."
Can you change your sleep rhythm?
"No, but you can modify it with good routines," said Maria Lennernas, from Uppsala University, Sweden, who has a doctorate in nutrition and shift work. "Eat at regular times, go to bed and get up at the same time every day. Then make sure you get enough bright light in the morning."
Failing that, said Jim Horne, from the sleep research center at Loughborough University, you can always go for damage limitation: "A 20-minute nap and a good dose of caffeine should help."
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS