They have artificial light, coffee, and other stimulants that allow us to overcome the natural rhythms of light and darkness. But there is a chronobiological basis for starting the day earlier in summer and later in winter,” explains Martín-Olalla.
The researchers argue that the practice of seasonal time change is a relatively recent one, dating back to the 18th century. Its purpose was to save energy and take advantage of daylight hours. However, they point out that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that it improves energy efficiency. “The practice of changing the clocks is not based on any scientific criteria. It is a political decision, but it turns out to be a social custom,” says Mira.
Despite this, the study highlights the importance of maintaining the practice of seasonal time change for our health. “Light is the most important synchronizer of our internal clock. Taking advantage of morning light is beneficial for human health,” says Martín-Olalla. The researchers emphasize that maintaining a regular schedule of light and dark periods is essential for our well-being.
In conclusion, the study underscores the naturalness of the seasonal time change and questions the basis of modern criticism of the practice. “The idea that changing the clocks is a nuisance or that it is detrimental to health is not based on scientific evidence. On the contrary, there are solid arguments in favor of maintaining this practice,” concludes Mira.
Overall, the study by Mira Pérez and Martín-Olalla sheds light on the physiological and social foundations of the practice of seasonal time change. It emphasizes the importance of taking advantage of morning light for our health and well-being. This research provides valuable insights into the benefits of maintaining a regular schedule of light and dark periods in our daily lives.
As we continue to navigate the challenges of modern life, it is essential to consider the natural rhythms of light and darkness and how they impact our health. By understanding the physiological and social implications of seasonal time change, we can make informed decisions about how to structure our days for optimal well-being.
The debate over the use of seasonal time change has been ongoing for years, with proponents and opponents arguing over its impact on human health and well-being. A recent study conducted by researchers Martín-Olalla and Mira sheds new light on this controversial topic, suggesting that changing the clocks has been a successful adaptation mechanism for over a century.
According to the study, time shifting is a synchronizing mechanism that helps align human activity with the corresponding season. Martín-Olalla and Mira propose that changing the clocks on the first weekend in April and the first weekend in October is the most appropriate time for this adjustment to occur. They argue that this practice has worked effectively for many years without causing serious disruptions.
The study also addresses the impact of seasonal time change on human health, distinguishing between the effects of the change itself and the effects of daylight-saving time. While some studies have suggested a slight increase in traffic accidents following the clocks going forward in the spring, the researchers point out that this impact is relatively weak compared to other factors influencing traffic accidents.
The authors challenge the notion that changing the clocks leads to long-term health risks such as cancer, sleep loss, and obesity. They argue that these studies fail to differentiate between the effects of seasonal time change and other variables, such as geographic location and lifestyle factors.
Furthermore, Martín-Olalla and Mira criticize the current controversy surrounding seasonal time change, emphasizing that it is a natural adaptation mechanism rather than a disruption to daily life. They highlight historical examples, such as the Spanish National Assembly’s seasonal adjustment in 1810, to support their argument that changing the clocks aligns human activity with the sunrise and allows for greater flexibility in daily routines.
In conclusion, the study calls for a reevaluation of the negative perceptions surrounding seasonal time change and emphasizes the importance of considering historical context and scientific evidence in the debate. Martín-Olalla and Mira suggest that changing the clocks has been a successful practice for generations and caution against rushing to eliminate it without fully understanding its benefits and implications. As medical associations continue to push for permanent winter time, the researchers urge a more nuanced and informed approach to this complex issue.
