Most people “guess” that eight hours is the optimal amount of sleep but a recent study published in the journal Nature has found that the “sweet spot” is rather less, said Allie Hare, a consultant in sleep medicine, in The Telegraph. And “falling short, or exceeding” this “precise window” is “linked with poorer brain, heart and immune health”.

What does the research say?
The ideal amount of nightly sleep is between six hours and 24 minutes and seven hours and 48 minutes, found US researchers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Getting that amount of shut-eye was associated with a lower risk of early death and disease. The study findings also suggest that insufficient or excessive sleep may be “markers of poorer overall health across the body”.

Previous research has found that getting too much or too little sleep is “largely linked to ageing and the pathological burden of the brain”, said Junhao Wen, the study’s lead author. But this new research “goes further” and shows that it’s also “associated with faster ageing in nearly every organ”.

Is it different for men and women?
Women “seem to do better with a little longer”, Marie-Pierre St-Onge, director of Columbia University’s sleep research centre, told The Washington Post. They need “15, 20 minutes” more sleep than men, which reflects sleep durations reported by the “general population”, which “tend to be slightly longer” for women.

So, everyone should be getting seven hours?
There are conflicting theories. “Individual needs” theories hold that there is no universal ideal because different genetics, age, health and activity levels will influence each person’s optimal amount of sleep. “Adaptive or evolutionary” theories hold that the correct amount of sleep will vary according to the season of the year, workload, stress and illness.

But we “might be overthinking it”, said The Guardian. Sleep is “important and fascinating” for scientists to explore “but, surely, for the rest of us”, it’s “best left mysterious”. There’s “so little we can do” to reach the “ideal” amount of unconsciousness, so “knowing precisely how bad that is for us is unhelpful”.

Not for the first time, confusion reigns over a Donald Trump social media post about the Middle East. Yesterday, the US president said on Truth Social that Hamas had agreed to “COMPLETE DISARMAMENT” in Gaza, and that “Israeli forces will withdraw” from the war-torn region. But his claim of “a step toward lasting PEACE AND SECURITY” appears open to question.

Israeli officials “remain deeply sceptical that Hamas will surrender its weapons”, said Axios. Comments from a senior Hamas official “suggest the sequencing of disarmament and Israel’s withdrawal” may be in dispute.

‘Monumental undertaking’
According to Trump, the disarmament deal was brokered by the international Board of Peace, which he established earlier this year to oversee the Gaza peace plan. He added that the International Stabilization Force would collaborate with “a new Palestinian police force to take responsibility for Gaza being safe”. 

But “we didn’t say disarmament”, Hamas negotiator Ghazi Hamad told The Wall Street Journal. The group simply “agreed to place its weapons in a storage facility”. Hamas has “long regarded giving up all its weapons as tantamount to surrender”, said The New York Times, so complete “disarmament would be a monumental undertaking”.

And Hamas will not act at all before Israel withdraws from Gaza, Hamad said. The agreement “contains a clear provision stating that Israel must commit to and implement its obligations. If Israel does not implement the agreement, neither will we.” 

‘Dramatic breakthrough’
Israel hasn’t made a public statement on the reports. But Trump would be “very, very” disappointed if Israel rebuffed the plan, a senior administration adviser told reporters. Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has reported that its government is “insisting on the complete disarmament of Hamas as a key condition for any progress”, said Middle East Monitor. It is unhappy “that the proposed agreement would allow weapons to be stored inside Gaza”.

If implemented, “the agreement would represent a dramatic breakthrough” and “clear the way for reconstruction of the devastated enclave”, said Axios. The Board of Peace’s National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, the interim body to which Hamas has offered to hand governing authority, said it is ready to “assume its responsibilities” in the territory. But “after nearly three years of repeated political announcements and statements about a political breakthrough, there is scepticism and cautiousness among Palestinians”, said Al Jazeera. 

Ackelia Smith competes for Jamaica in the qualifying round of the women’s long jump at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. Yesterday, she took the silver medal in the triple jump, behind Dominica’s Thea LaFond, while her Jamaican teammate Shantae Foreman won bronze.

Ben Stansall / AFP / Getty Images

Dorset: Clare Mount, Broadstone
A delightful period house moments from Broadstone Golf Club, and set in mature gardens. 6 beds, 4 baths, kitchen/breakfast room, 4 receps, conservatory, garden, garage. £1.35 million; Hardwick Estate Agents.

Cornwall: Portloe, Roseland Peninsula
Superb waterside residence with its own slipway and sea views. 4 beds, 3 baths, kitchen, 2 receps, balcony, sun room, garden, garage. £1.75 million; Lillicrap Chilcott.

Berkshire: Waterside House, Bray
Striking Tudor Revival/Edwardian house in a splendid riverside setting with mooring. 6 beds, 7 baths, kitchen, 5 receps, garden, parking. £3.975 million; Savills.

Scottish Borders: Maplehurst, Galashiels
An outstanding B-listed Arts & Crafts/Edwardian home set in 1.5 acres of mature landscaped gardens. 8 beds, 9 baths, kitchen, 6 receps, garden, garage. OIEO £895,000; Rettie.

The Burnham bounce is eclipsing the Green surge – and Zack Polanski’s radical hope is being tested
Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian
The “resurgence of hope, joy” and “energy in the Labour party” is bad news for the Greens, writes Gaby Hinsliff. Added to the “string of mistakes” Zack Polanski has made that “raise questions” about his “readiness for the remorseless scrutiny” leaders on the left “inevitably face”, it feels as if something has “shifted”. The Greens will say “only they can offer a ‘full fat’ socialist revolution” but, for now, it’s Andy Burnham “on whom the fickle political sun shines”. 

Uefa is right to stand up to Gianni Infantino
Jawad Iqbal in The Spectator
Uefa’s decision to boycott Fifa tournaments if “plans to sell shares in the World Cup” go ahead is “a huge moment” for football, writes Jawad Iqbal. Europe’s football leaders clearly believe “the future of the sport” is “on the line”. Fifa boss Gianni Infantino now only has “two realistic choices”: “drastically revise his plans or withdraw them completely”. Either would be “humiliating”, but milking the World Cup for ever more money is “disgraceful”. “He isn’t fit to be in charge”.

It is right to ask whether disability net is cast too wide
The Times’ editorial board
“Rising numbers of working-age” people are being granted the Pip disability payment, “often without a face-to-face interview”, says The Times. “The broadening of Pip access” to encompass not just “the grievously afflicted” but also those “at the milder end of mental-health problems” risks “taking much-needed resources from the former” and “creating a trap of dependency for the latter”. A “national conversation” about “far sharper clarification” is “long overdue”.