BRITISH Summer Time (BST) officially started on Sunday when the clocks went forward one hour.
It marks the end of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and will mean longer spells of daylight into evenings.
It may seem like a minor adjustment, but it could have a bigger impact on health than previously thought.
Here is everything you need to know about why and when the clocks go forward, as well as the impact on your body.
When did the clocks go forward?
The clocks go forward at 1am on the last Sunday in March. This year that fell on March 29.
BST, or daylight saving time (DST), lasts until the final Sunday in October, when the clocks go back an hour.
When was daylight savings introduced?
Despite popular theories, daylight savings was not introduced to help farmers.
Many dairy farmers actually complain that it disrupts their schedule, unsettling cows which struggle to cope with the change.
READ MORE: Residents evacuated after car crashing into property causes 'possible gas leak'
DST was first proposed by builder William Willett in 1907, in a pamphlet called The Waste Of Daylight, which outlined his frustration with not getting the most out of summer days.
He initially proposed that clocks jump forward by 80 minutes in four steps in April and reversed the same way in September. He died before any law was implemented in the UK, but his great-great-grandson, Coldplay singer Chris Martin, has seen it in action.
The first country to adopt DST was Germany in 1916, during the First World War. The UK followed suit a few weeks later.
Does every country change their clocks?
No, most countries do not observe DST. Only about a third of countries change their clocks in spring, and most are in Europe and North America.
In the last decade, Azerbaijan, Iran, Jordan, Namibia, Russia, Samoa, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay and most of Mexico have all stopped the seasonal time changes, according to the Pew Research Centre.
What are the benefits of daylight savings?
Extended evening daylight has many benefits, and not just around improving people’s mood in the lighter evenings.
DST has been shown to reduce crime due to increased visibility in the evening, boost the economy as people engage in outdoor activities for longer and decrease energy consumption.
How does the time change impact our health?
Dr John O’Neill, molecular biologist and cellular rhythm expert from the Cambridge-based Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, said there are “small but significant” risks because of the time change.
READ MORE: Too little too late – young Scottish Labour members' verdict on campaign launch
Dr O’Neill said: “It does not really serve much of a benefit to anybody these days, whilst exposing us to a small but significant series of risks.
“It is like everybody in the country gets an hour’s jet lag, all at the same time. You see an increase in incidence of heart attacks and strokes, and you do get an increase in the number of road traffic accidents for a few days after clocks change.”
Dr O’Neill said incidences of heart attacks and stroke increase because our bodies anticipate daily activity at certain times, and when the clocks change our physiology is not primed and ready.
He said: “If you place all of those burdens and demands on, for example, the cardiovascular system, an hour earlier, then it is just not quite as well prepared to satisfy the demand, so in people that are a bit older or a bit less healthy, it increases their risk of an adverse event, a heart attack or a stroke.”
Should daylight savings time be abolished?
Polling in recent years suggests that Britons would prefer to stay on BST if the time changes were scrapped.
YouGov published a poll in October showing that if our current system was axed, 59% of Britons would opt for the country to stay permanently on BST.
Dr O’Neill argued the clock changes should be stopped.
He said: “I’m sure it was extremely useful for our forebears 100 years ago, but there is quite a strong argument for just having permanent daylight saving these days.”
Should daylight savings be abolished? Let us know what you think in the comments.
Facts Only
British Summer Time (BST) started on March 29, with clocks moving forward one hour at 1am.
BST replaces Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and lasts until the last Sunday in October.
Daylight saving time (DST) was first proposed by William Willett in 1907 in a pamphlet titled *The Waste Of Daylight*.
Germany was the first country to adopt DST in 1916, with the UK following shortly after.
About one-third of countries observe DST, mostly in Europe and North America.
Azerbaijan, Iran, Jordan, Namibia, Russia, Samoa, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay, and most of Mexico have discontinued DST in the past decade.
DST has been linked to reduced crime, economic benefits, and lower energy consumption.
Dr. John O’Neill, a molecular biologist, states that the time change causes a small but significant increase in heart attacks, strokes, and road accidents.
A 2023 YouGov poll found 59% of Britons would prefer permanent BST if seasonal time changes were abolished.
DST was not introduced to aid farmers; many dairy farmers report disruptions to cow schedules.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative presents DST as a relic of the past with diminishing returns, framing it as a policy that no longer justifies its health and logistical costs. The article effectively highlights the tension between historical intent and modern consequences, giving weight to expert testimony about cardiovascular risks while acknowledging public sentiment favoring abolition. It avoids overt emotional manipulation but leans into a subtle appeal to pragmatism—why endure a practice with measurable downsides when its original purpose (energy conservation, wartime efficiency) may no longer apply?
Pattern scan: The piece employs a classic *ARC-0024 Ambiguity* by presenting polling data (59% support for permanent BST) without deeper context—such as regional variations, demographic splits, or whether respondents understood the trade-offs (e.g., darker winter mornings). It also flirts with *ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey* by conflating "daylight saving time" (a seasonal shift) with "permanent BST" (a fixed time zone), which are distinct policies with different implications. The framing of DST as "not serving much benefit" glosses over nuanced debates about its economic and social impacts, risking a false binary: either we endure the status quo or abolish it entirely.
Root cause: The narrative assumes progressivism in policy—older systems must be discarded if they cause harm, regardless of tradition or incremental benefits. This echoes broader modern skepticism toward institutional inertia, where practices persist not because they’re optimal but because change is politically difficult. The unstated assumption is that human biology and societal rhythms should align with clock time, not the other way around—a paradigm that prioritizes efficiency over adaptation.
Implications: Abolishing DST could improve public health, but the transition might disproportionately affect industries reliant on evening daylight (e.g., hospitality, tourism) or those with rigid schedules (e.g., agriculture, schools). The second-order question is whether permanent BST would deepen seasonal affective disorder in winter mornings or reduce road safety during darker commutes. Who benefits? Likely urban workers and health advocates. Who bears costs? Possibly rural communities and businesses tied to natural light cycles.
Bridge questions: If DST were abolished, how would we measure its impact beyond health metrics—would productivity, mental health, or energy use shift in unexpected ways? What alternative policies (e.g., flexible work hours, regional time zones) could address the same goals without a binary clock change? And if public opinion favors permanent BST, why hasn’t political action followed—what interests or inertia are at play?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative might amplify health risks while downplaying economic benefits, using polls to manufacture consensus and framing opposition as "backward." The actual content doesn’t fully match this—it presents counterarguments (e.g., crime reduction, economic boosts) and expert critique without demonizing DST supporters. However, the selective focus on health risks over other trade-offs could serve a subtle agenda favoring deregulation or "modernization" of timekeeping policies. No overt manipulation detected, but the framing leans toward a pre-determined conclusion.