Antique and Vintage Mechanical Clocks

A personal perspective on ending the twice-yearly clock change

Every spring and fall, we go through the same maddening ritual.

We move our clocks ahead one hour in the spring and back one hour in the fall. We complain about losing an hour of sleep in March, enjoy getting an extra hour in November, and then spend a few days adjusting to the change.

For years, I’ve wondered why we continue doing this and I have written about it frequently in the past.

There is now a growing movement to eliminate the twice-yearly clock change and choose one system to use throughout the year. But that raises another question:

If we’re going to stop changing the clocks, should we stay on standard time or daylight saving time?

There are good arguments on both sides which I will explore in this artcile. And interestingly, the answer I favour isn’t necessarily the one recommended by many sleep scientists.

The scientific case for permanent standard time

Let’s get the science out of the way first.

A number of sleep and circadian-rhythm researchers and medical organizations favour permanent standard time. A 2024 Canadian review concluded that standard time is more closely aligned with solar time and noted that both the Canadian Sleep Society and Canadian Society for Chronobiology support permanent standard time.

The reasoning is fairly straightforward.

Our bodies have an internal biological clock, known as the circadian rhythm. Light—particularly morning light—is one of the most important signals that keeps that clock synchronized with the day-night cycle.

Under standard time, sunrise and sunset are closer to their natural solar relationship. Permanent daylight saving time would move everything one hour later on the clock.

For example, imagine a winter morning when the sun would normally rise at 7:30 a.m. Under permanent daylight saving time, the clock would say 8:30 a.m. when the sun finally came up.

For someone who has to get out of bed at 6:30, get the children ready for school, and be at work at 8:00, that could mean spending a considerable portion of the morning in darkness.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has therefore argued that permanent standard time better aligns with human circadian biology and is preferable for health and safety.

So, from a biological standpoint, there is a very respectable argument for permanent standard time.

But what about the rest of us?

Here’s where I become less convinced. The argument for permanent standard time makes a lot of sense when you’re talking about someone who has to get up at a fixed time every morning. But not everybody lives that way. I’m retired.

If it’s still dark outside at 7:00 in the morning, I don’t necessarily have to get out of bed at 7:00. I can sleep a little longer. I can still get up at 7:00 but I’m not going anywhere.

And that changes the equation for me.

What I particularly like about daylight saving time is what happens at the other end of the day. I would rather have more daylight in the evening.

Daylight saving time doesn’t create more daylight

Of course, daylight saving time doesn’t magically give us an extra hour of sunshine. It simply moves one hour of daylight from the morning to the evening.

Suppose the sun rises at 7:00 a.m. and sets at 5:00 p.m.

Under standard time: Sunrise: 7:00 a.m. — Sunset: 5:00 p.m.

Move to daylight saving time: Sunrise: 8:00 a.m. — Sunset: 6:00 p.m.

The amount of daylight hasn’t changed. We’ve simply changed which part of the day gets that hour. And that’s precisely why I favour permanent daylight saving time.

I’d rather have the additional hour of usable daylight in the evening.

Why the evening matters to me

There is something very appealing about having daylight later in the day. It’s the difference between finishing dinner and finding that it’s already dark outside and having another hour of daylight available.

That extra hour can be useful for gardening, walking, working around the house, sitting outside, taking photographs, working on a project, or simply enjoying the evening.

For those of us who aren’t required to be at work at 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning, the argument about a later sunrise isn’t quite as compelling.

If the sun doesn’t come up until 8:00, I can adjust my schedule. If the sun sets at 5:00 instead of 6:00, I can’t. Once it’s dark, it’s dark.

But doesn’t permanent DST interfere with our body clocks?

Yes—and this is the strongest argument against my position.

The scientific concern is that permanent daylight saving time could leave us chronically out of step with our natural circadian rhythm.

Research has found that the human circadian system responds strongly to the timing of natural light, and studies have found that daylight saving time can disrupt the normal seasonal adjustment of sleep and activity patterns.

More recent reviews also point out that the evidence isn’t completely one-sided. A 2025 systematic review found that the transition into daylight saving time can adversely affect sleep, particularly among evening chronotypes, but also noted that the research has methodological limitations and that more research is needed to distinguish the effects of the twice-yearly transition from the effects of living permanently on daylight saving time.

And a large Canadian study involving more than 30,000 adults found relatively small changes in sleep around the spring transition, while the transition back to standard time was associated with some temporary increases in sleep dissatisfaction and insomnia symptoms.

So the science isn’t quite as simple as saying, “Daylight saving time is bad.”

There is certainly a legitimate scientific argument for permanent standard time. I just don’t think that necessarily settles the question for everyone.

What about children and people who work early?

This is probably the strongest argument against permanent DST. A child who has to be at school early can’t simply decide to sleep another hour. Neither can someone who works a 7:00 a.m. shift.

For these people, a winter sunrise that is an hour later could mean beginning their day in darkness. That’s a real disadvantage, and it shouldn’t be ignored.

But there is another side to that argument. Many people don’t work early shifts. Many adults have flexible schedules. And an increasing number of people work from home or have schedules that don’t require them to be on the road at sunrise.

For those people, the balance may look quite different.

And then there’s the twice-yearly clock change

For me, this is actually the easiest part of the argument. As an antique and vintage clock collector, the process of twice yearly changing clocks is super annoying. I’d like to stop changing the clocks.

Whatever one’s preference is between standard time and daylight saving time, constantly moving the clock back and forth is not particularly appealing. The spring change is especially unpopular because we lose an hour of sleep overnight.

Research has found short-term effects associated with the transitions, including changes in sleep and, in some studies, safety and health outcomes.

So if we can agree on one thing, perhaps it should be this: Pick one system and leave the clocks alone.

The real disagreement is over which system should become permanent.

My choice: permanent daylight saving time

So where do I come down? For me, permanent daylight saving time makes the most sense from a lifestyle perspective. I understand the scientific argument for permanent standard time. I understand why sleep researchers are concerned about the effect of a later sunrise on our circadian rhythms. And I certainly wouldn’t argue that those concerns should be ignored.

But I also think there is more to the question than biology. There is also the question of how people actually live their lives.

For someone who has to be at work at 7:00 a.m., permanent standard time may make a great deal of sense. For someone who has young children getting ready for school, the morning light may be important.

But for someone who is retired, works flexible hours, works from home, or simply prefers having more daylight available after the traditional working day, permanent daylight saving time has considerable appeal.

In my case, if it’s dark at 7:00 in the morning, I can sleep another hour.

But if it’s dark at 5:00 in the afternoon, I can’t move the sun. That’s why, despite the scientific case for permanent standard time, I would choose permanent daylight saving time.

I’d rather have the light at the end of the day. And perhaps that’s the real lesson in this debate: there may not be one answer that perfectly suits everyone. The important thing is that we stop moving the clocks twice a year and have an honest discussion about whether we want to prioritize morning light or evening light.

As for me, I’ll take the evening.

Sources referenced in the article

Canadian review on standard time and circadian health: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38427285/

American Academy of Sleep Medicine position statement: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37904574/

Systematic review of daylight saving time and sleep: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41110263/

Canadian study of sleep around daylight saving time transitions: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37137725/

Review of health effects associated with daylight saving time transitions: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37578383/