Tonight you'll sleep an hour longer, but scientists warn what that's really doing to your body
The article discusses the ongoing debate regarding the abolition of seasonal clock changes, noting that despite years of public calls to end the practice, clocks continue to be shifted annually. It cites Euronews reports indicating that experts argue health considerations should take precedence over other factors when determining future time policies. While proponents of permanent summer time highlight benefits such as longer, brighter afternoons that encourage social activity and economic growth, scientific analyses warn of significant negative impacts during winter months. Specifically, the text notes that permanent summer time would result in later sunrises, forcing millions of people to commute to work or school in complete darkness for several months. The article concludes by stating that recent health impact analyses suggest permanent winter time is superior for human biological rhythms, as morning sunlight is essential for synchronizing circadian cycles, reducing sleepiness, and improving mood.
On Sunday, October 25, 2026, clocks in Slovenia will turn back one hour at 3:00 a.m., transitioning from summer time to winter time. This annual adjustment means residents will sleep for an extra hour during the night. As the change takes effect, researchers have published new findings suggesting that permanent winter time offers superior health benefits compared to permanent summer time. The study, conducted by scientists at the University of British Columbia in Canada, was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It concludes that maintaining standard winter time aligns better with human biological rhythms than keeping daylight saving time year-round. The primary driver behind this recommendation is morning light. The human body operates on an internal biological clock that regulates sleep, wakefulness, hormonal processes, and body temperature. Morning exposure to daylight helps synchronize this internal rhythm with the natural day-night cycle. Conversely, increased exposure to light in the evening can delay the feeling of sleepiness and make it harder to fall asleep. Under a permanent summer time system, particularly during winter months, the sun would rise approximately one hour later than under current winter time standards. This shift would mean many children heading to school and adults commuting to work would depart their homes in complete darkness. Researchers warn that such conditions could lead to shorter sleep duration, reduced productivity, and poorer academic performance among students. Furthermore, dark mornings raise serious safety concerns regarding traffic accidents, especially for vulnerable road users like children. While many people appreciate longer, brighter evenings after work or school, scientific data indicates these benefits are outweighed by negative health impacts. Patrick Baylis, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, noted that while the appeal of extended evening light is understandable, the evidence points to detrimental effects on circadian rhythms. The lack of early morning light disrupts the body’s natural synchronization, potentially leading to chronic fatigue and decreased concentration. Some studies have even linked the days immediately following a clock change to an increase in heart attacks, strokes, and traffic incidents due to tired drivers. Several countries have previously experimented with permanent summer time, only to reverse course quickly. The United States introduced such a system in 1974 but abandoned it within the same year. Russia utilized permanent summer time between 2011 and 2014 before returning to standard time. Chile also adopted similar measures before deciding to revert. These historical attempts highlight the practical difficulties associated with altering established time zones. In Europe, the debate over abolishing seasonal clock changes has been ongoing for years. In 2019, the European Parliament voted 410 to 192 in favor of ending the practice. A subsequent survey involving 4.6 million Europeans found that 84 percent were opposed to the twice-yearly switch. However, member states have failed to reach a consensus on whether to adopt permanent summer or winter time. Without a unified agreement, the bloc continues the traditional schedule, moving clocks forward on the last Sunday of March and back on the last Sunday of October. For instance, the next spring transition is scheduled for March 29, 2026, while the autumn change occurs on October 25, 2026. Public reaction to the upcoming change varies. Some individuals, such as singer Regina, argue that the body requires at least two weeks to adapt to the shift and advocate for immediate abolition of the practice. She believes there are no convincing economic benefits to justify the disruption. Others, like presenter Klara Eva Kukovičič, prefer to align their schedules with the sun and view the extra hour of sleep positively. Meanwhile, musician Monica Pučelj stated she would prefer a uniform time zone throughout the year. Public health officials from the National Institute of Public Health in Slovenia advised citizens to use the additional morning light for physical activity. They recommended dressing warmly to combat lower temperatures and suggested indoor exercises on rainy or very cold days. Regular exercise in cold environments can boost the immune system and improve cardiovascular health, while also releasing endorphins, serotonin, and dopamine, which help alleviate symptoms of seasonal depression. Historically, the concept of adjusting clocks dates back centuries. Benjamin Franklin proposed the idea in an 18th-century satire, advising Parisians to wake earlier to save on candles. The first actual implementation occurred in Canada in 1908, when residents of Port Arthur, now Thunder Bay, moved their clocks forward to extend daylight hours. Germany and Austria followed suit in 1916 during World War I, primarily to conserve coal and fuel for military needs. In former Yugoslavia, summer time was introduced late, in March 1983, to harmonize time with the rest of Europe and facilitate international trade and transport. Despite modern research showing that energy savings from clock changes are negligible due to offsetting heating and cooling costs, the tradition persists. Until European nations agree on a permanent solution, the public will continue to adjust their watches twice a year.
Go to the primary sources (2)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
In Slovenia, clocks will be turned back by one hour at 3:00 AM on Sunday to switch to winter time, resulting in an additional hour of sleep. The National Institute of Public Health (NIJZ) notes that this transition marks the beginning of shorter, colder days and advises residents to utilize morning light for physical activity while dressing warmly to combat low temperatures. NIJZ highlights health benefits of exercising in cold environments, including improved immune function, enhanced cardiovascular health, and reduced symptoms of seasonal depression through increased release of mood-regulating hormones. The practice of changing clocks in Slovenia began in 1983 primarily for energy savings, though critics argue it negatively impacts biological rhythms and well-being. Although the European Commission proposed abolishing clock changes in 2019, member states have failed to reach an agreement, meaning the current system remains in effect.
Bias read (Center): The article covers a regulatory change mandated by national law and EU proposals, which places it in the politics category due to the involvement of public policy and government institutions. However, the tone is strictly informational and balanced. It presents the practical schedule, cites health机构
Why factuality (95): Accurate on the mechanical details. Correctly attributes the health advice to NIJZ (National Institute of Public Health). The claims about exercise in cold weather boosting immunity and cardiovascular health are generally accepted medical advice, though the specific link to 'infectious diseases' red
Why objectivity (90): Positive but grounded. It includes promotional-style health tips from NIJZ, which might seem slightly biased towards encouraging activity, but since it is attributed directly to the institution, it remains objective in its reporting of what the institution says. It balances the 'downside' of shorter
Scientists from the University of British Columbia have published a review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal concluding that permanent winter time is healthier for humans than permanent summer time. The study highlights that morning daylight is critical for regulating the body's circadian rhythm, which controls sleep, hormones, and temperature. While permanent summer time offers more evening light, it results in later sunrises, leading to shorter sleep duration, reduced productivity, and poorer academic performance among children. Researchers warn that under permanent summer time, many people would commute to work or school in complete darkness during winter months, increasing traffic safety risks. Although some countries like the United States experimented with permanent summer time in 1974, they quickly reversed the decision due to these negative health and social impacts.
Bias read (Center): The article discusses a public policy issue (time zone regulation) but relies entirely on scientific evidence rather than partisan arguments. It presents the findings of a specific medical journal objectively, noting both the popularity of summer time and the scientific consensus against it. Thereis
Why factuality (95): Correctly identifies the specific study (University of British Columbia, published in CMAJ) and the conclusion (winter time is better for health). Accurately explains the mechanism (morning light synchronization). The date and time details are correct. The explanation of why people prefer summer tim
Why objectivity (90): Objective and educational. It frames the issue around scientific evidence rather than political preference. It presents the 'clear answer' from scientists while acknowledging the popular appeal of summer time, maintaining a balanced perspective on the *reasons* for the debate even if the science lea
In British Columbia, Canada, clocks were last adjusted to daylight saving time this year, but the region has decided to stop changing them altogether. Starting November 1, most of the province will remain on UTC−7 throughout the year, reducing the burden on families and simplifying planning for businesses. In contrast, the European Union has struggled to reach a consensus on ending daylight saving time changes. Although the European Commission proposed abolishing the practice in 2018 and the European Parliament supported it in 2019, member states have yet to agree on a unified approach. The current rules will remain in place until at least 2031, according to a March 2026 announcement by the European Commission. Many countries outside Europe, including Brazil, Iran, Jordan, and Paraguay, have already abolished daylight saving time, while others apply it only in certain regions.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about daylight saving time policies in different regions without overtly favoring any side. It provides balanced coverage of both Canadian and European approaches, citing official sources and noting the lack of agreement within the EU.
Why factuality (94): The article accurately reports that British Columbia last moved clocks in March 2026 and will remain on UTC−7 throughout the year. It also correctly states that the EU has not reached a consensus on ending daylight saving time, citing the European Commission’s proposal from 2018 and the Parliament’s
Why objectivity (92): The article presents the facts neutrally, avoiding strong language or bias. It explains both the Canadian decision and the EU situation objectively, using straightforward language without apparent favoring of either approach.
This weekend marks the transition to winter time, where clocks are moved back by one hour, allowing people to sleep an extra hour. Experts warn that this seemingly minor change can disrupt biological rhythms, leading to shorter and poorer quality sleep, fatigue, and temporary increases in blood pressure. Older individuals are particularly affected due to their sensitivity to changes in circadian rhythm. Health organizations recommend preparing the body in advance through gradual adjustments to evening routines, exposure to daylight in the morning, avoiding afternoon naps, and limiting caffeine and heavy meals in the late evening. The European Union has been discussing the abolition of seasonal clock changes for eight years, but member states remain divided on adopting permanent time. A new study by the European Commission is expected to conclude at the end of 2026.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced overview of the effects of changing the clock and includes expert opinions and recommendations without showing clear bias toward any political stance. It mentions EU discussions on abolishing the practice but does not take a position on the issue.
Why factuality (85): The article accurately describes the time change event, including the date, the shift from summer to winter time, and the impact on biological rhythms. It cites experts and health organizations regarding potential effects like disrupted sleep and increased blood pressure. The mention of EU discussio
Why objectivity (90): The article presents information in a neutral tone, citing expert opinions and health organization statements without apparent bias. It avoids strong emotional language and provides practical advice for adjusting to the time change, maintaining an objective and informative approach.
The article discusses whether permanent summer time or winter time would be healthier for people, based on research from the University of British Columbia. The study suggests that permanent winter time offers greater health benefits compared to permanent summer time, particularly due to the impact of morning light on the body’s internal clock. Permanent summer time could lead to shorter sleep duration, reduced productivity, and poorer academic performance, especially during winter months when sunrise would be later. Some countries have previously attempted to implement permanent summer time but later abandoned the idea due to concerns over safety and well-being. Although the European Parliament supported a proposal to abolish seasonal time changes in 2019, member states have yet to reach a consensus.
Bias read (Center): The article presents findings from scientific research without overtly favoring either permanent summer or winter time. It includes balanced discussion of potential benefits and drawbacks of both options, citing examples of past attempts by various countries and noting the lack of agreement among EU
Why factuality (85): The article cites a study from the University of British Columbia suggesting that permanent winter time would be healthier than permanent summer time. It references the Canadian Medical Association Journal as the publication venue. These claims appear plausible and align with general scientific cons
Why objectivity (75): The article presents the findings of the study but uses slightly emotive language such as 'ljudje seveda obožujejo' (people certainly love) when referring to long summer evenings, which may imply a bias toward summer time. The conclusion leans toward supporting winter time without presenting counter
Slovenske noviceIndependentCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 95
This article features interviews with several Slovenian celebrities regarding their personal experiences with daylight saving time transitions. The piece highlights how different individuals adapt to the change in clock times, noting that while some accept the extra hour of sleep easily, others struggle with early evenings and disrupted body rhythms. Public figures such as singer Regina and creator Alya Elouissi argue for abolishing the practice entirely, citing a lack of convincing economic benefits and the importance of respecting natural biological cycles. In contrast, host Erter Pust embraces the winter schedule as a period for slowing down and self-care, while musician Monika Pučelj suggests maintaining a single unified time year-round. The report concludes by illustrating how these adjustments influence daily habits, ranging from sleep patterns to social activities.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced overview of public opinion on a regulatory issue (daylight saving time) by featuring quotes from multiple public figures with varying perspectives. It does not advocate for a specific political stance but rather reports on individual preferences and arguments for or废除
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (95): Highly objective in structure as it presents multiple viewpoints (some pro-change, some anti-change, some indifferent) through direct quotes. It allows the subjects to express their personal feelings without editorializing or taking a stance itself.
Gorenjski glasIndependentCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 95
On Sunday, October 25, at 3:00 AM, clocks in Slovenia will be turned back by one hour to switch to winter time. This change allows residents to sleep for an additional hour that night. The transition to summer time will occur again on the last Sunday in March.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on the implementation of daylight saving time, which is a matter of national regulation and public policy. However, the tone is purely informational and administrative, lacking any ideological framing, partisan commentary, or controversial debate regarding the practice itself. It
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (95): Extremely neutral and dry. Purely informational. No adjectives, no opinions, no historical tangents. Perfectly objective brief.
Info360IndependentCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 95
In Slovenia, clocks will be turned back by one hour at 03:00 on Sunday night to switch to winter time, resulting in an extra hour of sleep and lighter mornings but shorter afternoons. This change traditionally occurs on the last Sunday of October, which falls on October 25 this year, compared to October 31 next year. The European Parliament voted in 2019 to abolish seasonal clock changes, a proposal that was originally scheduled to take effect in 2021. However, the final legislation has not been adopted because EU member states have failed to reach consensus on whether to permanently adopt summer or winter time. Member states remain divided due to concerns that differing national arrangements could cause economic and organizational difficulties, keeping the reform on hold until a common solution is reached.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a straightforward informational update on the upcoming domestic time change while contextualizing it within the stalled EU legislative process. It neutrally reports the historical parliamentary vote and explains the current deadlock among member states regarding permanent time,
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (95): Neutral and explanatory. It explains the bureaucratic deadlock without assigning blame or using charged language. It presents the status quo as a result of procedural disagreement, which is a fair and objective characterization.
Maribor24IndependentProgressiveFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 90
The article discusses the ongoing debate regarding the abolition of seasonal clock changes, noting that despite years of public calls to end the practice, clocks continue to be shifted annually. It cites Euronews reports indicating that experts argue health considerations should take precedence over other factors when determining future time policies. While proponents of permanent summer time highlight benefits such as longer, brighter afternoons that encourage social activity and economic growth, scientific analyses warn of significant negative impacts during winter months. Specifically, the text notes that permanent summer time would result in later sunrises, forcing millions of people to commute to work or school in complete darkness for several months. The article concludes by stating that recent health impact analyses suggest permanent winter time is superior for human biological rhythms, as morning sunlight is essential for synchronizing circadian cycles, reducing sleepiness, and improving mood.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue primarily through the lens of public health and scientific consensus rather than economic or traditional arguments. By emphasizing 'public health policy' and citing expert warnings against the status quo or pro-business alternatives (permanent summer time), the narrative
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (90): The tone is informative and balanced. While it highlights the negative health aspects of summer time, it does so by presenting expert opinion rather than using emotional language. It acknowledges the arguments for summer time (longer evenings) before pivoting to the health counter-arguments.
VečerIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 90
In Slovenia, clocks will be turned back by one hour at 3:00 AM on Sunday night, transitioning to winter time and providing residents with an additional hour of sleep. The article traces the history of daylight saving time, noting that while it was originally introduced during World War I to conserve fuel, modern research indicates that energy savings are negligible due to increased heating and air conditioning usage. Medical experts warn that the artificial shift disrupts biological rhythms, leading to sleep disorders, chronic fatigue, and decreased concentration. Furthermore, health risks include a documented increase in heart attacks, strokes, and traffic accidents immediately following the clock change. The European Commission has previously proposed abolishing seasonal time changes entirely, supported by a public survey where 84% of citizens opposed the practice.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue through a critical lens regarding public health and scientific evidence, arguing that the current system is outdated and harmful. It highlights the European Commission's proposal to abolish the practice and cites high levels of public opposition, aligning with a stance (
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (90): Balanced presentation. It lists the original economic rationale, refutes it with modern energy data, and then details the health risks. It does not dismiss the benefits entirely but focuses on the net negative impact according to experts. Tone is professional and journalistic.
Ljubljanske noviceIndependentCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 80
This article informs Slovenian residents that clocks will be turned back by one hour at 3:00 AM on Sunday, October 25, 2026, marking the transition from summer time to winter time. It notes that this change allows people to sleep an extra hour but includes a casual remark that those who forget to adjust their devices do so at their own risk. The piece references a 2021 European Union survey in which 84% of respondents favored abolishing daylight saving time, though the practice has continued. Historical context is provided regarding the origins of daylight saving time, highlighting that Canada implemented it locally in 1908, preceding Germany and Austria in 1916. The article credits New Zealand scientist George Vernon Hudson and British builder William Willett with independently proposing the concept in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Finally, it offers brief historical trivia about ancient timekeeping mechanisms such as sundials and water clocks.
Bias read (Center): The article primarily serves as a practical reminder for a scheduled administrative event (clock change). While it mentions a European Union policy debate regarding the abolition of daylight saving time, the tone remains neutral and informative. There is no strong advocacy for or against the policy,
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (80): The tone is somewhat informal and slightly snarky ('Tisti, ki to ne boste, pa ni naša stvar' - Those who won't [sleep longer], it's not our problem). This introduces a subjective, conversational voice that reduces neutrality compared to standard news reporting. The historical digressions feel like f
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Slovenia
