Working 55 or more weekly hours increases up to 40% the risk of atrial fibrillation.
Type 2 diabetes is a disease caused by the organism's inability to produce sufficient insulin amounts or to use this hormone in an 'adequate' way, which causes blood to carry an excess of glucose that, in the long run, ends up damagingmultiple organs throughout the body.
A disease suffered by about 400 million people around the world and whose risk of appearance is conditioned by various factors, especially for obesity.And it seems, for the long working days.
At least in the case of women.And as a study directed by researchers from the Laval University in Quebec (Canada), women who work 45 or more hours per week have a greater risk of ending up suffering from diabetes.
As Mahée Gilbert-Ouimet, director of this research published in the magazine «BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Amp;Care »,« Taking into account the rapid and substantial increase in the prevalence of diabetes worldwide, the identification of risk factors, in case of long working days, has enormous importance to improve the prevention of both diabetes andof their associated chronic diseases ».
question of ‘time’
It is not the first time that a study warns that, in the long run, the excess of hours dedicated to work has very negative health consequences.For example, it is already known that people with work weeks that reach 55 hours have, compared to those who work between 35 and 40 hours, a probability up to 40% greater to end up suffering atrial fibrillation.
In fact, it is not the first time that it is observed that the accumulation of ‘marathon’ working days seems to increase the risk of diabetes.However, almost all studies related to this metabolic disease had been carried out exclusively with men.So what happens to women?
To answer this question, the authors followed for 12 years - from 2003 to 2015 - the evolution of 7,065 women and Canadian men who, with ages between 35 and 74, were divided into four groups depending on the weekly hoursDedicated to work - whether this paid work or not - between 15 and 34 hours;35-40 hours;41 to 44 hours;and 45 or more hours.
Working many hours could promote a chronic stress response, which would increase the risk of hormonal disorders and insulin resistance.
After the follow -up of 12 years, about 10% of the participants had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, being the incidence of the major disease in men and in the elderly and/or with obesity.However, and unlike how other studies had suggested, the duration of work weeks had no influence on the risk of diabetes in men.In fact, and once other sociodemographic factors have been discarded - among others, the Body Mass Index (BMI) and the lifestyle - such as 'labor' –Caso of employment changes, the number of weeks worked in theLast 12 months and the performance of a more 'active' or 'sedentary' occupation, the results showed the opposite trend: the longer duration of the work week, less risk of diabetes in men.
Not so in the case of women.And it is that compared to those who worked between 35 and 40 hours a week, women whose jobs reached or exceeded 45 hours presented a risk up to 63% higher developing diabetes.A result that, once again, was independent of the rest of sociodemographic and ‘work’ evaluated factors.
But how do you explain that the dayslongest labor increases the risk of this metabolic disease?Well, the truth is that it is not known.But as the authors suggest, "working many hours could promote a chronic stress response in the body, which would lead to an increase in the risk of hormonal disorders and insulin resistance."
Gender differences
More;Since it is an ‘observational’ study, conclusions that explain the differences in the risk observed between women and men cannot be drawn.However, as the authors indicate, "although there is no obvious explanation for gender differences, women may work more hours taking into account all domestic tasks and family responsibilities."
And at this point, this risk of diabetes refers to type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes?Well, once again, it cannot be said with certainty, since the follow -up was done through the evaluation of medical records and the results of different national health surveys, in which the type of disease was not established.Be that as it may, it is logical to think that it was type 2 diabetes, because as Mahée Gilbert-Ouimet concludes, "it is estimated that type 1 diabetes represents only 5% of all cases of diabetes in the adult population."
