Opens in a new tab

Breaking news

Loneliness And Social Isolation Can Shorten Healthy Life Expectancy By Six Years, Study Finds

Social isolation and loneliness are often used interchangeably, but they describe different realities. Social isolation is measured by limited contact and participation with others. Loneliness is a subjective feeling of disconnection from the world around you. A new study published in Nature Communications suggests that both can carry a significant health cost.

Researchers analysing data from more than 270,000 adults aged 40 to 69 found that loneliness and social isolation were each associated with fewer healthy years of life. On average, the impact amounted to roughly six disease-free years lost, underscoring the extent to which social wellbeing and physical health are intertwined.

“Overall, the study found that social isolation and loneliness can have a significant impact on disease-free life expectancy,” said lead author Lu Qi, professor at Tulane University.

Loneliness Hits Mental Health Harder

The effects were more pronounced for mental health than for physical disease. The study found stronger associations with the loss of years free of depression and anxiety than with years free of conditions such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, neurodegenerative disease and cancer.

That distinction matters. A person may be physically surrounded by others and still feel profoundly alone, while another may have a small social circle without experiencing loneliness. The study suggests that both states can influence long-term health, but in different ways.

A Healthy Lifestyle Helps, But Only Partly

The researchers found a more active, healthier lifestyle could reduce some of the harm linked to social isolation. In other words, good habits may help offset the effects of limited social contact. But the same was not true for loneliness. The study indicates that healthy routines do not fully compensate for the damage associated with feeling disconnected.

At age 50, people experiencing both loneliness and social isolation were expected to spend fewer years free of major chronic disease than those experiencing neither. The finding reinforces a growing body of evidence that social health is not a soft variable; it is a meaningful predictor of later-life wellbeing.

Men And Women Do Not Experience It The Same Way

The health effects also differed by sex. Among women, loneliness and social isolation were linked to 2.4 fewer years spent in good physical health and 3.7 fewer years free from mental disorders. Among men, the figures were 1.7 years of physical disease-free life lost and 5.8 years of mental disorder-free life lost.

Men were also more likely to experience both loneliness and social isolation, along with lower levels of social, material and economic resources, and a weaker healthy-lifestyle score.

The authors suggested that the gap may reflect differences in how men and women seek support and build psychological resilience. Men may rely more heavily on physical presence and frequent interaction, while women may depend more on emotional support. That distinction could help explain why the burden of loneliness appears to fall differently across genders.

For employers, healthcare systems and policymakers, the message is clear: social connection is not merely a personal comfort. It is a public health issue with measurable consequences for disease-free life expectancy.

Real Or Artificial Christmas Tree: Which Is Better For The Environment?

Choosing between a real and artificial Christmas tree is an annual dilemma, but the environmental impact depends on more than the type of tree. Its production, transport, how long it is used and what happens to it after the holidays all matter.

Artificial trees can spread their manufacturing footprint over many years, while locally grown real trees can be a lower-impact option if responsibly sourced and properly recycled. Renting a living tree is another alternative.

Artificial Trees Need Years Of Use To Be Sustainable

The environmental case for artificial trees depends largely on how long they remain in use. Manufacturing and transporting plastic trees generates emissions, which are spread over each year of use.

According to the Carbon Trust, an artificial tree needs to be used for seven to 20 years to have a lower carbon footprint than a real one.

However, some consumers replace artificial trees much sooner. Research published in 2017 found that 14% of artificial-tree buyers in the UK planned to discard theirs after just one season.

“If you’ve got a fake tree already, keep using it – make it last as long as possible,” says Emi Murphy, a tree campaigner at Friends of the Earth. She recommends considering more sustainable alternatives when an existing tree eventually needs replacing.

Buying a secondhand artificial tree from a charity shop or online marketplace can also avoid the environmental costs of manufacturing a new one.

Choosing A Responsibly Grown Real Tree

For households that do not plan to keep an artificial tree for many years, a fresh-cut tree may be a better option, particularly if it is grown locally and responsibly.

Certification from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) can help identify trees from responsibly managed sources. Buying locally can also reduce transport emissions, as many trees sold across Europe are shipped from major producers in countries such as Denmark and Germany.

Consumers can ask suppliers where their trees were grown and how the land is managed. Buying directly from a nearby farm can also support regional growers.

Renting A Living Christmas Tree

Renting a potted tree offers another option. Customers receive a living tree for the holiday season and return it afterwards so it can be cared for and reused.

London Christmas Tree Rental delivers potted trees in early December and collects them after the holidays. Co-founder Catherine Loveless said the idea came from concerns about trees being grown for only a few weeks of use before being discarded.

“It just felt so wasteful for these beautiful trees to grow just for the sake of three weeks of our pleasure,” Loveless told Euronews Earth.

However, the environmental benefits depend on whether the tree stays healthy, survives after collection and can be reused in subsequent seasons. Transport and ongoing care also need to be considered.

How To Dispose Of A Christmas Tree

What happens after the holidays is another important part of a tree’s environmental footprint.

According to the Carbon Trust, an average two-metre real tree sent to landfill produces around 16 kilograms of carbon dioxide, as well as methane during decomposition. Chipping or burning the tree can reduce its carbon footprint by up to 80%.

Households should check whether their local authority offers Christmas tree collection. Collected trees may be chipped for paths or composted for use in public green spaces.

Artificial trees are more difficult to recycle because they combine materials such as plastic and metal. If a tree is still in good condition, donating it to a charity, church or community organisation can extend its useful life and prevent unnecessary waste.

Which Christmas Tree Is The Best Choice?

There is no single answer for every household. Keeping an artificial tree for as long as possible is often the most practical option if you already own one. Those buying a real tree can reduce its impact by choosing a responsibly grown local option and arranging proper recycling. Renting a living tree may also work where providers can reliably collect, maintain and reuse it.

Ultimately, the most sustainable choice depends on making the tree last, reducing unnecessary transport and planning how it will be reused or disposed of after the holidays.

Aretilaw firm
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
eCredo
Uol

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter