I was also frustrated by the article's lack of elucidation on that matter. I think this is about as close as we come to an explanation:
[T]here is a discrepancy between your biological clock and social clock, which researchers refer to as “social jet lag,” Dr. Roenneberg said. Permanent standard time is closer to the sun’s natural time so social jet lag is reduced, he added. “Daylight-saving time means that we virtually live in another time zone without changing the day-light cycle,” Dr. Roenneberg said. “The problem is the misalignment."
Which makes sense on its own, but it doesn't account for the variance within time zones. A Chicago resident experiences sunrise and sunset about an hour earlier than a resident of Lubbock, Texas, even though they are in the same time zone (Central). So you can't really say that Standard Time is the one-size-fits-all solution -- and indeed, the Illinois Senate just passed a bill [1] to make DST permanent in that state (although it is hamstrung by the same federal regulations that other states face after passing similar bills).
That absolutely does not make sense even on it's own. What is "the sun's natural time" supposed to mean? That seems to suggest that anyone not waking up at whatever Dr. Roenneberg considers the correct time is "misaligned." Not only does he not consider variance within times zones, he doesn't consider variance within schedules.
Depending on schedule, location, and plain personal preference, any number of time schemes could be "the best" for any given person. Ultimately it doesn't matter whose on what time as long as we are standardized to reasonable large areas, and pick something that's within a few hours of most people's ideal.
Roenneberg isn't stupid. He is saying that biological time and social time are such that setting clocks closer to solar time ends up being healthier for more people.
Also Roenneberg is quite clearly aware of the variance of daylight within time zones and the health effect that this causes. I bet he's even written papers on this effect!
Comments
I was also frustrated by the article's lack of elucidation on that matter. I think this is about as close as we come to an explanation:
Which makes sense on its own, but it doesn't account for the variance within time zones. A Chicago resident experiences sunrise and sunset about an hour earlier than a resident of Lubbock, Texas, even though they are in the same time zone (Central). So you can't really say that Standard Time is the one-size-fits-all solution -- and indeed, the Illinois Senate just passed a bill [1] to make DST permanent in that state (although it is hamstrung by the same federal regulations that other states face after passing similar bills).
[1] https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-senate-passes-bill-t...
That absolutely does not make sense even on it's own. What is "the sun's natural time" supposed to mean? That seems to suggest that anyone not waking up at whatever Dr. Roenneberg considers the correct time is "misaligned." Not only does he not consider variance within times zones, he doesn't consider variance within schedules.
Depending on schedule, location, and plain personal preference, any number of time schemes could be "the best" for any given person. Ultimately it doesn't matter whose on what time as long as we are standardized to reasonable large areas, and pick something that's within a few hours of most people's ideal.
Roenneberg isn't stupid. He is saying that biological time and social time are such that setting clocks closer to solar time ends up being healthier for more people.
Also Roenneberg is quite clearly aware of the variance of daylight within time zones and the health effect that this causes. I bet he's even written papers on this effect!
It's arbitrary to a degree, but the whole point of having time zones is so that it's somewhat close to noon when the sun reaches its zenith.