While some people can spring out of bed at six in the morning and go straight into their day, others prefer to wake up later as they’re most productive in the afternoon or evening. This difference is due to your chronotype – the biological tendency to prefer certain times of day for sleep, waking and activity.

But these aren’t the only factors affected by your chronotype. A growing body of research also suggests that your chronotype can affect the benefits you see from exercise.

People who naturally rise early and feel sharpest in the morning are “early chronotypes”, whereas those who prefer to wake later and function better in the afternoon or evening are “late chronotypes”. People who fall in between are “intermediate chronotypes”.

Your chronotype is determined by your circadian rhythms – the body’s natural daily cycles that repeat around every 24 hours. Although these are strongly influenced by our environment, they function even without external cues such as daylight and food. These rhythms affect our physiology, behaviour and health.

Our circadian rhythms are controlled by the body’s circadian system, which is made up of tiny biological clocks composed of proteins, which are found in organs and tissues. These clocks rely on genes that help coordinate when different processes happen, such as when we feel alert or sleepy.

The circadian system also influences many other bodily functions, including blood pressure, heart rate, blood sugar regulation and blood vessel function. As these factors are also affected by physical activity, this may explain why aligning your workouts to your natural chronotype can be beneficial.

Some studies support this, suggesting that the time of day people exercise can influence health outcomes – including cardiovascular fitness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity and some cancers.

However, as these were observational studies (which only show associations rather than cause and effect), they can’t definitively prove that the findings were solely caused by the timing of the exercise.

But a recent randomised controlled trial has investigated whether aligning workouts with chronotype could enhance the benefits of exercise. The researchers specifically looked at people who were at risk of cardiovascular disease.

Participants were grouped according to their chronotype, which was measured using a specialist questionnaire. Morning types exercised between 8–11am and evening types exercised between 6-9pm. A third group exercised at the opposite time to their chronotype (morning types in the evening and evening types in the morning).

Participants whose exercise was aligned with their chronotype experienced greater improvements in blood pressure, aerobic fitness, blood glucose, cholesterol and sleep than participants whose training times were misaligned with their chronotype.

But though these improvements show that timing exercise to your chronotype can enhance its health benefits, there are a couple of important nuances.

Even the group that exercised at the supposedly wrong time still experienced health benefits, showing that exercise is beneficial even when it doesn’t align with your chronotype. The study also did not include intermediate chronotypes, who make up around 60% of the adult population. For these people, the timing of exercise may be less important.

Based on the available evidence, exercise timing appears to be a meaningful consideration, particularly for people who are strong morning or evening chronotypes.

Beyond your chronotype

So how do you know your chronotype?

Most people have an intuitive sense of this based on when they naturally prefer to sleep and wake. However, work schedules and care-giving responsibilities often force us into routines that conflict with our chronotype. Over time, this makes it harder to be sure of your chronotype.

For this reason, researchers developed a questionnaire to help you determine your chronotype. The 19 questions include what time you feel you’re at your peak and how easy you find it to wake up in the morning.

Once you have a clearer sense of your chronotype, you can start thinking about when to schedule your training.

However, chronotype isn’t the only factor that can affect training and how you respond to exercise. This is good news for those who may not be able to align workouts with their chronotype.

For instance, body temperature usually peaks in the afternoon regardless of chronotype, which enhances muscle function. This is why strength, speed and coordination tends to be best in the afternoon, making it a prime window for resistance training and technical practice for most people.

Habitual training time can also shift performance over time as the body adapts to the time you regularly train. So even if you’re naturally a night owl, consistent morning training may eventually make you perform better at that time.

Another critical factor to consider when deciding when to workout is sleep.

If you haven’t slept well the night before, research suggests it’s better to exercise earlier in the day, regardless of your chronotype. This is because the drive to sleep, known as “sleep pressure”, builds steadily from the moment you wake up and peaks just before you fall asleep. By evening, growing sleep pressure makes exercise feel harder and can impair your performance.

Exercising late in the evening can also reduce sleep quality, particularly when the session is intense. As a general rule, leave at least a two-hour gap between exercise and bedtime.

There’s no single best time to exercise that works for everyone. While the evidence on the long-term health benefits of matching exercise time to chronotype is growing, some principles apply broadly.

Peak performance varies by chronotype, and matching your workout time to yours may help you train harder and achieve better health benefits. However, any exercise is better than none – regardless of timing.

If you’re a night owl but can only train in the morning, a warm-up is essential. Wear extra clothing and start with 10-15 minutes of light aerobic activity to gradually increase body temperature and increase alertness.

If evenings are your only option, opt for moderate or low-intensity activities (such as yoga or a jog) to avoid disrupting sleep.

Paul Hough does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Researchers at MIT have suggested that rice seeds can hear the sound of rain, according to a new study. MIT calls it “the first direct evidence that plant seeds and seedlings can sense sounds in nature”. Perhaps surprisingly, the effects reported in this new study are not as radical as they may appear.

Playing music to your plants may sound eccentric, but a few previous studies have found it has some effect. For example, a 2024 study found bok choi grew better to classical music but less well to rock and roll. Nor is this an isolated phenomenon. Sound can have a range of effects on plant behaviour.

For example, some flowers use the pitch of an insect’s buzz to determine whether they will release their pollen. Both arabidopsis (thale cress) and tobacco plants produce higher levels of toxins, such as nicotine, in response to the sound of caterpillars chewing on neighbouring plants. There have also been reports that notes from a synthesiser can increase seed germination and seedling growth in mung beans, cucumber and rice.

Many people think of plants as nice-looking greens. Essential for clean air, yes, but simple organisms. A step change in research is shaking up the way scientists think about plants: they are far more complex and more like us than you might imagine. This blossoming field of science is too delightful to do it justice in one or two stories. This article is part of a series, Plant Curious, exploring scientific studies that challenge the way you view plantlife.

In contrast to previous experiments using electronic tones from a speaker, the MIT researchers instead tested the effect of a natural sound upon rice germination: the fall of rain. Rice can grow in soil or under water, and the researchers started by measuring the sound made by raindrops falling onto shallow puddles similar to the paddies they sowed seed in. The volume of sound waves created by drops landing on water was incredibly loud, equivalent to someone shouting straight into your ear, but mostly at frequencies too low or too high for a human to hear.

They then poured simulated rain on some of the pools containing rice and compared their rate of sprouting with seeds in still water. They found that although water droplets imitating light rain had little effect, heavier rain increased germination, and the heaviest by more than 30%.

They also picked up on an important clue from a previous study about how the rice might be detecting the sound. A 2002 study found that mutant arabidopsis plants which can’t make starch didn’t respond to vibration in the same way that normal arabidopsis do.

Sound waves are just vibrating energy travelling through a gas, liquid or solid that make objects, such as the eardrum membranes we use to hear, shake as they pass. Sound is one way we detect vibrations. The MIT researchers theorised that perhaps plants needed to be able to make starch to detect sound.

This drew their attention to structures called statoliths, from the Greek for “standing stone”. Plant cells that can detect gravity each contain several statoliths filled with highly dense starch which sink through the cell. As they fall, the statoliths brush against other structures in the cell and come to rest pressing on its bottom, telling the plant which way is down.

To test their theory, the researchers modelled the effect of the recorded sound upon statoliths in the rice seeds. They found that the rain sounds could make the statoliths bounce up from the bottom of the cell like beads on a drum. Light rain would have little effect, but as the rain sound got heavier the statoliths jumped higher and faster, matching the stimulation of germination.

It also seemed that the layer of statoliths in the bottom of the cell would behave almost like a liquid, similar to the balls in a children’s ball pit, and that the sound energy would stir this “liquid” and help spread chemical messages to the rest of the plant.

The mutant arabidopsis from the previous study probably couldn’t sense vibrations because they can’t make the starch that their statoliths need to work. This suggests that that statoliths may be one way that plants “hear”.

Although there is now little doubt among scientists that plants can detect and respond to sounds, is this really hearing or is a mind needed to perceive the signal? Plants don’t have a nervous system and centralised brain like humans and most other animals. There has, however, been a lively debate amongst scientists about whether plants demonstrate some type of intelligence or not.

Observations of plant behaviour that appears intelligent include a 2017 study in which pea roots seemed to follow the sound of water through a simple maze, and 2016 research that claimed pea shoots learned that they would find light if they followed the direction of wind from a fan.

Scientists have observed electrical signals in plants of a similar type to those in our nerves, even if they are not carried by specialised structures like our nervous system. In many cases we don’t know what they do, but this may be because plants often respond in ways that aren’t obvious to us.

For example, electrical signals are used to trigger Venus flytraps to close and then crush their prey. They are also used in Mimosa pudica (also known as shyplants) which rapidly close their leaves when touched. Perhaps a more delocalised type of intelligence is possible.

And there may be other factors at play. Hearing may require an organism that is conscious to sound. There are many definitions of consciousness. But mother and daughter scientists Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan have argued that at its most fundamental, consciousness is simply an awareness of the world outside the organism. If so, this is surely something that all species must possess if they are to respond to their environment and survive, even if it varies in complexity and nature.

Maybe the world of a rice seedling is too different to ours for us to understand, but it may not be too much of a stretch to say that they hear the sound or rain.

Stuart Thompson has received funding from MAFF and the Nuffield Foundation and has consulted to the University of Copenhagen.

The term “handpicked” suggests a bouquet that has been chosen carefully, each flower selected for its colour, form or meaning and relation to the others. The curators of this new exhibition at Kettle’s Yard in Cambridge have certainly achieved a complex yet complementary arrangement.

This small but rich exhibition was picked and approved with the help of The Kettle’s Yard Community Panel – a collective of Cambridge locals working alongside the gallery to help design, plan and curate exhibitions and creative projects.

The works are arranged chronologically starting with Henri Rousseau and ending with contemporary works by Chris Ofili and Lubaina Himid.

Rousseau’s Bouquet of Flowers (1910) is an array of real and imagined blooms with almost jungle-like depth. Rather than travelling abroad for inspiration, Rousseau relied on the Jardin des Plantes in Paris for the “exotic” plants taken from French colonies for his paintings.

In contrast Himid offers the viewer a collection of blooms from peonies to palm leaves, arranged as a repeating pattern, redolent of east African Kanga cloth designs.

The reference to the cloth subtly recalls the colonial slave trade but also celebrates the richness and diversity brought by migration. The title, These Are for You – that phrase often used by visitors giving a bunch of flowers on arrival – can then be understood as a wry comment.

Juxtaposed with these complex global and historical themes are some more personal, intimate scenes. Vases of flowers are often depicted in interior domestic spaces. Relationships are shown or hinted at sometimes with an undercurrent of sorrow. Flowers, often harvested to give joy, to congratulate and decorate, once picked are doomed to wilt and decay.

Eric Ravilious’s Ironbridge Interior (1941) creates an atmosphere of calm, but also melancholy. The flowers and grasses in a jug are fresh from the hedgerow. On the wall of the sun-lit room is another painting loosely pinned of a different vase with more blousy but drooping blooms, which hints at the inevitable passing of time. This mise-en-abyme (picture within a picture), creates a hollow feeling of unease.

The painting is made more poignant in the knowledge that Ravilious, a war artist at the time, died a year later in an air crash. Nearby hangs a small painting by Tirzah Garwood, Ravilious’s wife. Springtime of Flight completed only nine years later, shortly before her death from cancer, depicts an intricately painted biplane flying above a floral landscape.

It movingly shows her love for Ravilious and her love of life when faced with her own mortality. It is an imaginary world that she perhaps took comfort and refuge in.

There are many more stories to be found and pieced together in this exhibition. Some, like Jennifer Packer’s bloody Chrysanthemums (2015) return to a political subtext. This is one of the many floral paintings which Packer describes as “vessels of personal grief”. They pay tribute to people who have lost their lives through police brutality.

Packer’s work connects with Himid’s concerns. Their paintings are accompanied by Cassi Namoda’s more joyous work – a celebration of her homeland Mozambique and the birth of her son, Arafah Gaza’s Arrival (2025).

Others like Gluck’s Convolvulus (1940) reveal the sensual sometimes erotic inferences of flowers. Although a common weed, Gluck associated these flowers with their former lover the florist Constance Spry. In Gluck’s painting convolvulus or bindweed is made ornate and beautiful, imbued with sexual tension of winding limbs and lust.

Of course, throughout the exhibition lies the changing landscape of artistic tastes and styles which mirror society and the times in which they were made. Charles Rennie Mackintosh’s precise almost architectural rendering of Fritillaria (1915), points to art nouveau as well as oncoming modernism. Whereas Rory McEwan’s enlarged minimally presented and closely observed Tulip (Helen Josephine) from 1975 blends minimal hyperrealism with botanical illustration.

At the other extreme hangs Howard Hodgkin’s small abstract Red Flowers (2011) painted with emotion-laden gestures in memory of his father.

Each artist has chosen their particular flowers to paint, exerting control over nature showing a particular fascination, atmosphere, idea that they want to impart though this choice. Every visitor can handpick and arrange their own narrative journey through this show, with the clear yet eclectic, aesthetic choices of the permanent collection as a subtle background influence.

Handpicked: Painting Flowers from 1900 to Today is at Kettle’s Yard until September 6 2026.

Judith Brocklehurst does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Bacteriophages, or phages, are viruses that infect and kill bacteria. These microscopic predators are found everywhere from soil and water to food and the human gut. Because they attack only specific bacteria, researchers are increasingly exploring them as tools for reducing harmful bacteria in humans and animals without disturbing helpful microbes.

That makes them especially interesting at a time of rising antimicrobial resistance. This is when bacteria evolve ways to survive drugs designed to kill them. It’s a global health threat driven in part by the overuse of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture. Unlike broad-spectrum antibiotics, which kill many different kinds of bacteria and can also disrupt helpful gut microbes, research has shown that phages may be able to remove harmful bacteria with less disruption to the wider microbiome.

This has led researchers to investigate phages both as nutraceuticals, dietary supplements intended to promote health, and as feed additives in livestock production. In both cases, the aim is similar: reduce harmful bacteria, support gut health and potentially cut reliance on antibiotics.

How phages work

Phages work very differently from antibiotics. Rather than killing a broad range of bacteria, each phage typically infects only particular bacterial species or closely related types of bacteria.

When a phage encounters its target bacterium, it attaches to the cell and injects its genetic instructions. The virus then replicates inside the bacterium until the cell bursts. This releases new phage particles that go on to infect other bacteria.

This precision is one reason phages are attracting attention as a possible way to fight harmful bacteria. Unlike broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can disrupt entire communities of microbes, phages may be able to remove particular harmful bacteria without the same wider effects on the microbiome, according to studies of phage-microbiome interactions and research on antibiotic-associated microbiome disruption.

That raises the possibility that phages could be used not simply to kill bacteria, but to shape communities of microbes in ways that support health. Researchers have explored their potential in food safety, agriculture and human health.

In recent years, researchers and biotechnology companies have begun exploring phages as dietary supplements for humans. The idea is that people could ingest phages to reduce harmful gut bacteria in the hope of restoring balance in the gut microbiome, the community of microbes that lives in the digestive system.

Early findings are encouraging, though still preliminary. For example, one human clinical study found that a commercially available phage product targeting E. coli reduced levels of the bacteria in the gut without causing major disruption to the rest of the microbiome.

Other work has examined phage products designed to support digestive health by targeting bacteria associated with digestive discomfort or dysbiosis, an imbalance in gut microbes. A randomised controlled trial of a phage-based supplement reported improvements in digestive symptoms among participants with mild digestive issues.

This is still an emerging field, and the evidence remains limited. But the results so far suggest phage-based nutraceuticals could eventually form part of diet-based approaches to improving gut health.

There are already signs of commercial interest. In the US, phage products have been approved for certain food safety uses, such as reducing bacterial contamination on foods. Phage-containing supplements are already on sale.

Public acceptance, however, may prove just as important as scientific progress. Because viruses are usually associated with disease, researchers and manufacturers will need to explain clearly why these “good viruses” are different. They occur naturally, they are highly specific and they target bacteria rather than human cells.

Improving animal health through feed additives

Phages may also have an important role to play in livestock production. Farm animals often carry disease-causing bacteria such as Salmonella, Campylobacter and harmful strains of E. coli. These bacteria can harm animal health and contaminate food products. They can contribute to food-borne illness in humans.

Phage-based feed additives are being developed to target these bacteria in livestock. By incorporating phages into feed or drinking water, farmers may be able to reduce harmful bacteria while preserving beneficial microbes that support digestion and the immune system.

Experimental studies have produced promising results. In poultry, phage supplementation has been shown to reduce the presence of Salmonella and Campylobacter, two of the most common causes of food-borne infection worldwide. Research in pigs has also found that phage treatments can reduce harmful E. coli infections, improving gut health and growth.

Phages are also being investigated as alternatives to antibiotic feed additives used to prevent diseases such as liver abscesses – pockets of infection in the liver – in cattle. Because phages replicate only when their target bacteria are present, their effects may naturally taper off once those bacteria are gone, making them a potentially useful way to control infection.

Despite promising research, bacteriophage supplements are not yet widely authorised as feed additives in the UK. Regulators require extensive evidence of safety, stability and effectiveness. Because phages are biological entities that can evolve alongside bacteria, agencies must also consider whether they remain genetically consistent over time and what effects they might have on other microbial communities in the environment.

Even so, regulatory progress is emerging elsewhere. Phage-based food safety products targeting disease-causing bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella have already been approved in several countries. This includes the US, where they are already being used in food safety applications.

More recently, European regulators authorised the first bacteriophage-based feed additive designed to reduce Salmonella in poultry. That marks an important step towards broader adoption of the technology.

Interest in bacteriophages reflects a wider shift in how microbes are understood in relation to health. If research continues to advance, and regulation keeps pace, phage-based nutraceuticals and feed supplements could become part of a new generation of more targeted ways to shape the microbiome, supporting both human health and more sustainable agriculture.

Tiny though they are, these bacterial viruses may end up playing a significant role in how we manage harmful bacteria.

Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.