Cross-sectional study finds moderate and long weekend sleep reduce metabolic syndrome risk, suggesting health implications.
The association between weekend catch-up sleep (WCS) and the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the association between WCS and MetS. This cross-sectional study was performed on individuals (n = 7658) based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2017 to 2020. Five categories of WCS were calculated: decreased (WCS < 0 hours), no change (WCS = 0 hours), short WCS (0 hours < WCS ≤ 1 hour), moderate WCS (1 hour < WCS < 2 hours), and long WCS (WCS ≥ 2 hours). Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between WCS and MetS, as well as its components. The analysis was further refined by integrating a restricted cubic spline, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses were then performed. The study found that moderate (1–<2 hours; odds ratio [OR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53–0.98) and long (≥2 hours; OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52–0.98) weekly sleep durations were associated with lower odds of MetS. This association appeared to be primarily driven by a robust association with hypertension (moderate WCS: OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46–0.89; long WCS: OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43–0.83). In exploratory subgroup analyses, associations were observed for males, Mexican Americans, individuals who slept 6 to 9 hours/night during the weekday, and those who were sedentary for 8 hours/day; however, interaction tests were not statistically significant for most subgroups, and these findings require further validation. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of the association between moderate/long WCS and lower odds of MetS. The restricted cubic spline model indicated a nonlinear relationship between WCS and MetS. Moderate to long WCS was associated with lower odds of hypertension and MetS in this cross-sectional analysis. Additional prospective studies are required to verify these findings and elucidate the underlying mechanisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: