DailyResearch papers, in 10 minutes

Today's science, out loud.

The research papers that matter, picked by an editor and explained in about ten minutes. Three picks in your daily briefing, the whole catalogue to browse. Then ask any paper anything, out loud, and hear what it says.

Hear today's paper · 1 min 0:00

Free to download · No ads · iPhone · Android? Get notified

Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing Mathew P. White, Ian Alcock, James Grellier et al. · Scientific Reports The authors analysed 19,806 adults from a nationally representative survey in England who reported how much recreational time they had spent in natural places in the last 7 days. Compared with none, 120 to 179 minutes a week went with higher odds of reporting good health (odds ratio 1.59) and high well-being (1.23), after adjusting for neighbourhood greenspace, deprivation, physical activity and other factors. Below 120 minutes there was no…

saysTwo hours a week. Under that, no better than nothing; over that, better odds of feeling well.

“Hey Aiden, how much time in nature was enough?”

The problem

New science comes out every day. Almost none of it is written for you.

The paperCross-sectional survey · n = 19,806 · peer-reviewed

“The authors analysed 19,806 adults from a nationally representative survey in England who reported how much recreational time they had spent in natural places in the last 7 days. Compared with none, 120 to 179 minutes a week went with higher odds of reporting good health (odds ratio 1.59) and high well-being (1.23), after adjusting…”

Dense, long, written for specialists.

PaperSays8 min listen

saysTwo hours a week in nature went with better self-reported health and well-being than none at all, and under two hours made no difference.
explainsTwo hours a week. Under that, no better than nothing; over that, better odds of feeling well.

Clear, short, and every sentence tells you where it comes from.