In the UK, the clocks have just sprung forward (meaning it feels like we’ve lost an hour’s sleep).

That shift has consequences. It’s been linked to higher heart attack risk, “social jet lag”, and misaligned body clocks. The British Sleep Society has previously called for clock changes to be dismissed altogether because of how much they mess up our circadian rhythms, which can take weeks to reset.

And no matter what time of year it happens, longer-lasting “chronic circadian misalignment” is linked to a higher risk of diabetes and heart disease.

But some research has found that “zeitgebers” can help to get your body clock back on track.

The term comes from two German words: “Zeit,” meaning “time,” and “geber,” meaning “giver”.

It’s any part of your environment, be it morning light or mealtimes, that acts as a way to “set” or give cues to your body clock.

These are important because our natural circadian rhythm doesn’t run on an exact 24-hour schedule. We need zeitgebers to help match our body clocks to the demands of our social and professional schedules, and to prevent “social jet lag” and other body clock misalignments.

One paper found that mealtimes, physical activity, and light exposure seemed to influence our body clocks the most.

Those who got up later (after 6:30-7:45am) and saw later light (after 11pm), as well as eating later (having their first meal after 7:45-9:45am and last meal after 8-9pm) tended to go to bed anywhere from half an hour to about an hour and 20 minutes later.

And those who didn’t get outside light until after 9:30am seemed to sleep about half an hour longer.

Meanwhile, those who did over a third of their physical activity in the morning tended to fall asleep and wake up earlier. That stood regardless of how much physical activity people did.

This might suggest that doing your workout in the mornings, getting some morning light, and having your latest meal before 8pm could make the post-clock change period (which demands earlier wake-ups) a little easier to manage.

Donald Trump’s plan for a ground operation in Iran will make US troops “sitting ducks”, according to the BBC’s chief international correspondent.

The US president claims he is considering seizing Iran’s major fuel hub of Kharg Island as his war against Tehran escalates – though he insists a peace deal could still be made.

Meanwhile US officials say troops are preparing for a possible ground operation, and Iran has threatened to “rain fire upon” American soldiers who approach.

But the BBC’s Lyse Doucet has warned that sending troops into Kharg Island will make them incredibly vulnerable to Iranian attacks.

The specialist said this would be a “major and risky” operation with as many as 50,000 troops potentially facing fire from Iranian artillery and fast boats.

“And then what?” She told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme. “They’re sitting ducks. How do you control the island, how do you hold it, how do you resupply it?”

Doucet added: “There are hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who are hoping that is what President Trump is going to do.

“Their whole strategy in this war is to increase the cost for the United States.

“Nothing increases the cost more than killing American soldiers.”

She said US Gulf allies would be vulnerable to any retaliatory attacks too, concluding: “This would be a major escalation and wouldn’t bring the war end.”

Taking the island would cut off one of Iran’s main lifelines as 90% of their oil went through that hub before the conflict began.

But it remains unclear just how much Tehran relies on it since the war escalated.

On Trump’s claims someone more “reasonable” is in charge in Iran right now, Doucet said: “It’s just not clear who is in charge in Iran.

“There is of course president Trump’s confusion between regime change and change in the regime.

“He used to separate them but now he sees them as one and the same. It’s not one and the same.”

She noted that the more hardline elements have been left in the wake of Trump’s strikes, even though major figure heads such as Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei have been killed.

The president has said he could “take the oil In Iran”, and even joked about renaming the major oil shipping lane to the south of the country after himself.

On Friday, he said Iran has to “open up the Strait of Trump – I mean, Hormuz,” triggering laughter from the crowd.

Trump joked: “Excuse me. I’m so sorry. Such a terrible mistake. The fake news will say, ‘He accidentally said’ – no, there’s no accidents with me, not too many. If there were, we’d have a major story.”

Every day it seems like there’s a new slang term doing the rounds among Gen Alpha – in recent times, kids have been using bop, huzz and gyatt, all of which are typically used to describe girls in a sexualised way.

Government research suggests sexual harassment – which can include sexual comments, remarks and jokes – is widespread in schools in England. What’s more, data from the Youth Justice Board shows the number of children committing sexual offences is on the rise.

Yet when you search for parenting advice on sexual harassment and catcalling online, much of the focus is tailored to those who have girls, who are more likely to be on the receiving end of this harassment.

With Louis Theroux’s latest documentary exploring the ‘manosphere’ and the misogynistic views of those within it, conversation has once again turned to how we can help raise boys who shun this damaging ideology.

If boys are seeing misogynistic content online, this kind of behaviour can become normalised in real life, too. So, how do we protect against it?

Ongoing conversations, says Lee Chambers, founder of Male Allies UK. Namely ones about values and respect.

According to Hilber Psychological Services, making boys aware of inappropriate behaviours at a young age can help prevent this behaviour as they grow up.

You can use pop culture or things you see in the media or on TV to show them what is inappropriate, and discuss how it makes other people feel.

Chambers said discussions should be honest and clear – remain curious, not shaming or blaming, but instead trying to connect with your child. Listening and asking questions is often more effective at communicating with teens than lecturing.

“Make it a regular conversation about values and respect, not a special case,” said Chambers.

It might be helpful to actually explain what sexual harassment is: unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature. It can include many things – from sexual assault to unwanted touching or gestures, sexual innuendos, catcalling, and making sexual comments about a person’s looks or clothing.

Per Hilber Psychological Services, you could ask your son why they think other men do this, and offer them examples of how to help stop it, “such as standing up for girls or refusing to laugh at inappropriate jokes”.

Encouraging them to put themselves in others’ shoes is key. Chambers urges parents: “Reflect questions toward them, ask them: how they would feel if this happened to women in their lives? What [do] they think when they see others doing it? What [do] people at school think?”

The male allyship specialist said you can then begin to explore the impact of this on women and girls, including how catcalling and sexual harassment can make them change their behaviour to stay safe.

Ultimately, it’s about teaching respect and consent throughout their upbringing – and this can start really early and continue right into their teens.

And parents need to be role models for this too, for example, when referring to others or watching television, etc. “Kids are always watching, learning and copying,” Chambers added.

While you should be prepared for defensiveness and responses that “the other lads do it” among teens, Chambers said it’s key to validate that it can be hard to challenge others – especially when their mates might just respond that “it’s a joke”.

He ends that boys should bring it back to the fact it’s not fun to make others feel unsafe. This way, they can “be part of the solution, not the problem”, he ended.

Robert De Niro has never been one to shy away from taking on Donald Trump, and let the president have it once again over the weekend.

On Saturday, De Niro slammed Trump for being an “existential threat to our freedoms and security”, before joining an estimated nine million people at a “No Kings” protests against the US leader and his administration.

“He must be stopped and he must be stopped now!” stressed the two-time Oscar nominee, a staunch Trump critic who has thrown his support behind the demonstrations.

“It’s time to say no to kings. It’s time to say no to Donald Trump, we’ve had enough!” he said during a press conference.

De Niro — just over a month after his emotional plea for Americans to resist the president — went on to decry Trump’s “unnecessary” Iran war before describing him as a “corrupt leader enriching himself” and his “Epstein class buddies”.

“No taking health care from our most vulnerable neighbours, no unaffordable groceries, no unaffordable energy, no unaffordable housing and no inflation at it’s highest level since Covid,” he emphasised. “No government masked thugs shooting down our neighbours in the streets.”

He proceeded to take on “all the fucked up things” Trump has done “without the collusion of Congress and the goons in his administration”, adding that Republican party officials are bound to him in fear of losing their jobs.

De Niro was later spotted leading a march alongside the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Padma Lakshmi and others protesting against the president in New York City.

In Washington DC, and St. Paul, Minnesota, music legends Joan Baez and Bruce Springsteen, respectively, performed for massive crowds as protesters called for a U.S. “regime change” as well as the arrests of Trump and members of his Cabinet.

De Niro, in remarks on Sharpton’s MS NOW program PoliticsNation, declared that Trump is a “crazy… damaged person” and will try anything while in power before calling on Americans to not let up in protesting him until the midterms are “resolved for the right reasons”.

The BBC’s new TV offering could well be about to become one of the year’s most talked-about dramas.

Emmy and Bafta-nominated I May Destroy You star Paapa Essiedu and Bodkin’s Siobhán Cullen take the lead in the new six-part series Babies, which centres around a young couple and their struggles to conceive.

Early reviews have heaped praise on the new drama’s performances, as well as its unflinching approach to themes of miscarriage and pregnancy loss, though critics have acknowledged that this makes Babies a difficult and potentially triggering watch for those affected by these topics.

However, many have also pointed out that the drama also features moments of “bittersweet” relief and scenes of hope to counterbalance its more “hard-hitting” moments.

Here’s a selection of what has been said about Babies so far…

“Although there are a lot of distressing, incredibly hard-hitting scenes in the six episodes of Babies, and it does go to some seriously dark, upsetting places, it is not a ubiquitously grim watch. In many ways, it is also hopeful, filled with some genuinely funny moments, some uplifting revelations and thoughts on how to cope during difficult times, and some keen observations about human behaviour.”

“A bittersweet drama […] Siobhán Cullen and Paapa Essiedu are achingly convincing as Lisa and Stephen, an ordinary London couple in their 30s trying to have a baby. The pair navigate the rollercoaster of pregnancy, loss and grief more than once, as they continue to get through life’s mundanities and special little moments.”

“All in all, Babies is as heartening as it is heartbreaking. Is it slow at times? Yes. But I came to realise that the stillness can be essential […] I didn’t find Babies easy to watch, but doing so touched me in ways I’ll be thinking about for a while.”

“Bafta-winning writer Stefan Golaszewski is a byword for thoughtful, exquisitely cast, contemporary TV drama […] This time, the intensity is sky-high again but laced here and there with humour as he takes on the emotionally freighted subject of a couple’s longing to have a child […] It’s a drama of silences, quiet moments, social awkwardnesses and deep yearnings, with Cullen and Essiedu hugely sympathetic in their portrayal of the intense ups and downs in otherwise ordinary lives.”

“Its low-key slow-burn style won’t be to everyone’s taste, and it will be difficult viewing for any woman who’s tragically lost a child in pregnancy.”

“A tender, moving exploration of love, loss and hope […] This is a drama that doesn’t shy away from the difficult moments, despite dark times of grief and loneliness, it’s also about resilience, connection and the small victories that keep hope alive.”

“Essiedu has easily given the best performance of his career so far in new BBC drama, Babies […] It’s one of the most gut-wrenching and honest portrayals of baby loss that I’ve ever seen, charting every possible emotion any person is capable of handling throughout. The grief is unimaginable, but somehow, there is always light and love at the end of the tunnel.”

“An incredibly accomplished piece of television in almost every regard. Essiedu and Cullen have extraordinary chemistry […] We don’t need to warn you any further about the subject matter. However, we can also say this: Babies may make you weep, but there will be happy tears, too.”

All six episodes of Babies are now streaming on BBC iPlayer.

• Sands works to support anyone affected by the death of a baby.
• Tommy’s fund research into miscarriage, stillbirth and premature birth, and provide pregnancy health information to parents.
• Saying Goodbye offers support for anyone who has suffered the loss of a baby during pregnancy, at birth or in infancy.

US President Donald Trump on Sunday night broke out some props as he spoke with reporters on Air Force One about one of his biggest obsessions.

With the war in Iran passing the one-month mark, the stock market plunging into correction territory, gas prices soaring by $1 a gallon or more over the past month, and the partial shutdown of the federal government entering its seventh week, the president showed off oversized renderings of the ballroom he is trying to have built at the White House.

“This is a view of the columns as they are going to be made, they’re gonna be hand-carved, isn’t that beautiful? Top of the line,” Trump said as he displayed the image below. “They’ll be Corinthian, which is considered the best, most beautiful, by far.”

As Trump displayed the images, he claimed that people were talking about “how beautiful” the ballroom was, and said it would be needed to host foreign leaders, such as Chinese President Xi Jinping. He also said the military was building a “massive complex” beneath the ballroom.

Over the weekend, The New York Times published a report that said the “rushed” project was full of design flaws, including stairs to nowhere and columns that would block the view. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back on X, slamming the authors as people who had “never built anything” and defending the project as “a beautiful ballroom that’s been needed for decades.”

But critics pointed out that the 90,000-square-foot ballroom was far larger than the White House’s 55,000-square-foot main residence, and others slammed Trump for demolishing the East Wing to make way for the structure without first seeking public input. The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, a nonprofit that oversees the preservation of historic structures, has also filed a lawsuit that could slow or even stop the project.

Trump’s lengthy aside about his ballroom left critics aghast, especially given everything else going on that would seem to require the president’s attention:

Donald Trump suddenly has “no problem” with allowing Russian oil into Cuba.

Just a month ago, before the US-Israeli strikes against Iran, America had aligned with its western allies by imposing strict sanctions on Vladimir Putin’s oil industry which fuels his war against Ukraine.

A fortnight ago, Trump eased those penalties against Moscow in response to the Iranian closure of a major oil shipping lane.

That meant countries could buy Russian oil which had previously been floating in the sea unable to be sold.

Now it appears Trump is even more relaxed about what Putin does, as he evidently does not mind if those tankers actively cross the Atlantic.

The president has blocked any attempts to send energy exports to Cuba since January in protest against the country’s leadership.

But overnight, the US president told the press: “If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that, whether it’s Russia or not.”

A reporter asked: “Do you worry that that helps Vladimir Putin?”

He replied: “It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil. That’s all it is. It’s fine. If he wants to do that, it doesn’t bother me.”

Trump went on to claim Cuba is “finished” with “bad and corrupted leadership”.

“Whether or not they get one boatload of oil, it’s not going to matter. I’d prefer letting it in, whether it’s Russia or anybody else, because the people need heat and cooling and all of the other things,” the president said.

Trump previously threatened to impose tariffs on any country that sends crude oil to Cuba.

However, the Kremlin has dismissed such threats, noting the US and Russia have not been trading much lately.

The BBC has responded to speculation about how much Question Time guests are paid to appear, following recent claims made by Thomas Skinner.

Last week, the divisive TV personality made his inaugural appearance on Question Time, alongside Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem MPs Jake Richards, Tom Tygendhat and Layla Moran.

In response to a comment from one viewer suggesting Thomas had been booked due to him being a “vocal supporter” of Nigel Farage’s Reform party, the former Strictly Come Dancing star wrote on X: “I’m not there representing any party. I’m there because it pays £2,000 and I like watching Question Time.”

He added: “I’ve been asked probably nine or 10 times to attend over the last four or five years. So I decided to give it a go. And I really enjoyed it.”

Shortly after this, Question Time clarified: “Question Time can confirm that panellists who are not politicians are offered an appearance fee of £150.”

Despite this, Thomas continued to maintain that he “agreed £2000 for me to go on” Question Time, as well as “agreeing” that “they pay [my] driver £400 on the night to take me and bring me back”.

He later told The Sun: “My understanding of the fee came directly from my management, who informed me that I would be paid £2,000 for attending.

“I’m a big fan of Question Time and really enjoyed being part of the show. At the same time, it is work for me, and with three kids, I have to treat these opportunities as part of my job”.

A BBC rep reiterated that non-politicians were paid £150 for their time on the panel show.

HuffPost UK has contacted the BBC for additional comment.

The most recent instalment of Question Time was filmed in Clacton-On-Sea, where Reform leader Nigel Farage is the current MP.

He said before the broadcast that he was “not able to take part” in the broadcast due to a BBC policy which forbids MPs from “appearing on the show in their own constituencies”.

“There is a longstanding policy on Question Time not to invite MPs on in their local constituencies unless it’s for a single-issue special programme,” a spokesperson for the broadcaster later confirmed.