Related links: https://www.bulletproof.com/sleep/sleep-hacks/light-hacking-...
He talks about the red light idea there and the crazy laser idea I'm remembering I think was "low-level light therapy." Appears to be based on science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355185/pdf/nih...
He's the guy who's claimed for years that he's going to live past 180. But in reality, he has aged in a frightening way, much faster than the average person. He looks 20 years older than he did 6 years ago.
Maybe it's because of too much biohacking? The body is just not built for so much modification for such long periods of time?
But I don't take issue with his pursuit, and I wish him well. Perhaps he'll prove us wrong when something suddenly clicks when he's 80 and he actually starts decreasing in age again. I'm not being sarcastic. If he wants to keep trying, good on him.
(a) Does this study sound plausible?
(b) Would staring at the correct red color on a monitor work? Or would that not work since monitor colors are generated by mixing R, G, and B pixels and therefore not a pure wavelength?
(c) Would it be reasonable methodology to test one eye to see if it improves over the other eye?
The red primaries in most color spaces, including wide-ish stuff like DCI-P3 is around 615. Even Rec 2020 is just 630.
Note that it's fairly common to see chromaticity diagrams labelled with wavelengths around the edges, so you can check multiple sources if you want.
I didn't read the original article in sufficient depth to tell you if the researchers even know what 615nm would do, but it's not 670nm anyhow ;-).
Incidentally, the linked article also includes measured spectral responses for a few wide gamut screens, some of which have at least some response near 670nm. The most extreme on that page was the Del 3007WFP-HC LED, which peaked at 653, and has a wide peak hitting well over 700nm too (but below 650 too). A 2019 model Samsung Q80R qled TV (perhaps more common), had a peak at 632 nm, and at 670nm is about 20% as bright as at its peak.
(d) How much does the precise wavelength matter? The study used 670nm but also mentions the range 650-1000nm. Lots of red-light gadgets are available on Amazon but how do you verify the wavelength? I was thinking of an optical spectrum analyzer but at $28,000 they are shockingly expensive. Even with raw LEDs bought from a reliable electronics distributor like Digi-Key, it would be nice to be able to measure it somehow.
Or make your own? It'll probably be good enough https://publiclab.org/w/spectrometry
ThorLabs also sell cheaper spectrometers by the way. You don't need a spectrum analyser with seven significant figures! https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=34...
You can also get light testing devices used for film/industrial illumination https://www.sekonic.com/color-meter/c700 (about 1.5-2k)
Or even single chip spectrometers with broad 20nm resolution from Hamamatsu (about £400 on group gets). https://groupgets.com/manufacturers/hamamatsu-photonics/prod...
You can use a OSA, but yes they are expensive. Spectrometers are typically cheaper, but still expensive (you could go to a university optics group and ask them if they could measure it for you). That said if you buy from a reputable source you should get the right wavelength.
If you are trying this out be careful with the brightness.
You can get them used for below 1000$, eg this listing:
Just select one that has the one you are looking for, it's going to be cheaper and easier than getting an expensive or inaccurate spectrometer.
For instance, this classic one is at 660nm:
(b) unlikely, monitors work by essentially filtering out undesired colors from white light. I don't believe that >650nm light is within the color gammut of monitors. That's quite a long wavelength and close to infrared. To give you an indication, the Helium Neon lasers which used to be very common in schools etc for laser demonstrations have a wavelength of 632nm.
Even if the monitor could display this, the brightness would likely not be strong enough.
(c) Could be, but it might be quite annoying to do.
I'm going to give this a try!
I got it for use with a telescope for looking operating a telescope without losing night vision.
i don't know how precise it should be..
On the other hand, I don't see the harm in doing this and it seems easy to replicate. Hopefully others will quickly try to replicate it, and if they do, try to figure out why.
I guess the new LED bulbs miss a lot of frequencies that were present in incandescent (black body radiation) bulbs. I wonder if we'll see a bunch of "light frequency deficiency" diseases arising as a result.
The more panacea it is, the more woo it probably is, eh?
[Edit: NB. Nitric Oxide is produced in the paranasal sinus cavities, and when inhaling through the nose it gets drawn into the body. It appears to be involved in arterial flexibility, increasing blood flow, decreasing blood pressure, immunity, neurotransmission, and relatedly treating erectile dysfunction. Humming appears to increase the production of Nitric Oxide. Maybe the red light up the nose just makes you breathe through your nose?]
Physical evolution does not keep up so well with modern society's pace of change and understandings therein.
Indeed, we are all stone age hardware trying to run modern software.
I've started doing the 10,000+ steps for a couple of years, and yes there does seem to be a difference to my health and energy.
If it works, I'd imagine the mechanism is something on the cellular level, similar to how blue light disturbs sleep by stirring up activity within a certain type of retinal cell.
Here it is:
I also know that astronomers use red light while ‘scoping as it doesn’t impact the eyes sensitivity
I struggle for any period of nighttime on a screen without it now.
But unless they did a pre study release this is P hacked to death.
24 people, then narrowed to only over 40, 20% difference in some frequencies.
If science worked we'd immediately re-test this. The cost savings per year could be enormous if it's true.
if they were serious why they didn't try this only on one eye to compare the effect on each person?
There's nothing that drives altruistic development of things that improve peoples' lives. There's only greed-driven capitalism. As a result, many helpful things sit on the shelf.
I’ve been using tools like manictime and more recently the open source activitywatch to help junior staff learn how to manage their own activities.
I also use a paper based system similar to the emergent time tracker for the same purpose.
The key difference in approach is these are tools are for the individual to use to record their own activities, either to later record in other tools like JIRA or simply to remember and review their work.
Time tracking and activity logging is really important for some businesses, but having a sensible approach from senior management is critical to avoid them becoming self defeating. When I ask my colleagues to log their time I set and expection that useful accuracy of more than 60% is unachievable.
Whenever a senior manager suggests that developers need to log more time in JIRA I tell them they are focused on the wrong data points and will end up with every developer logging a flat 8 hours a day - probably with an automated script. Maybe useful for billing but nothing else.
Campfires have a LOT of deep red light.
That seems like an /extremely/ dubious assertion. Maybe it's counter-intuitive and correct? Anything to back it?
It is described here in the top section
So that's a very, very much weaker claim "time outside may affect ..." and acknowledges the role of genetics and other factors. Of those 2 references I looked at
I declare I have no expertise in the field but also didn't find the meta-analysis paper convincing.
Looks the most promising. I couldn't find a replication.
So there could be something in "time outside" as a beneficial preventative measure for some children w.r.t. myopia. There is nothing much like "Myopia is caused by insufficient bright light as a child" as I understand that sentence. But maybe I've misunderstood?
Any explanation of myopia must explain why it is far more prevalent now. Genetics does not explain that.
(Now we've had the relevant part of the conversation will you please humour me as I whinge like a 3 y.o. about how much it s&%ts me on some of the days I can't see straight? Good. Thanks. As you were...)
"Yes I am aware that the 670nm LEDs are hard to come by, they are also rather variable between batches which has caused a lot of problems for us as we now have to test extensively. I think 660nm will work. Question is, will it work as well as the 670nm? I suspect not. But also I do not know if this can be compensated for by longer exposures etc etc… There are a lot of variables here that we do not know about"
It's just not popular because it implies that screen use is bad and those unpopular scientific topics are often pushed under the rug.
For what it's worth I have no stakes in anything and no sources at hand. I remember having read at least two different studies about this, but it has been years. I'm sure your google-fu is as good as mine so maybe you can find something.
I suggest you Google-fu yourself.
2017: Aging Retinal Function Is Improved by Near Infrared Light (670 Nm) ...
"Our data suggest, 670 nm light can significantly improve aged retinal function"
2016: Red Light of the Visual Spectrum Attenuates Cell Death in Culture and Retinal Ganglion Cell Death in Situ
" Low, non-toxic levels of red light focussed on the retina for a short period of time are sufficient to attenuate an insult of raised IOP to the rat retina"
2015: Mitochondrial Decline Precedes Phenotype Development in the Complement Factor H Mouse Model of Retinal Degeneration but Can Be Corrected by Near Infrared Light
"we provide evidence for a mitochondrial basis for this disease in mice and correct this with simple light exposure known to improve mitochondrial function"
2013: 670 nm light mitigates oxygen-induced degeneration in C57BL/6J mouse retina
"These results suggest that pretreatment with 670 nm light may provide stability to photoreceptors"
2013: Low-Intensity Far-Red Light Inhibits Early Lesions That Contribute to Diabetic Retinopathy: In Vivo and In Vitro
"Daily 670-nm PBM treatment resulted in significant inhibition in the diabetes-induced death of retinal ganglion cells"
2013: Paranode Abnormalities and Oxidative Stress in Optic Nerve Vulnerable to Secondary Degeneration: Modulation by 670 Nm Light Treatment
"Light at a wavelength of 670 nm may serve as a therapeutic intervention for treatment of secondary degeneration following neurotrauma"
2012: Age-related Retinal Inflammation Is Reduced by 670 Nm Light via Increased Mitochondrial Membrane Potential
"670 nm light [...] significantly increased mitochondrial membrane polarization and significantly reduced macrophage numbers and tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels"
"This chart pulled from the Joovv site shows that one of the receptors of light energy in our body, Cytochrome C Oxidase, absorbs many more photons at certain wavelengths."
Can anybody tell me where to find a reasonably precise 670nm torch at that price point?
Like they say, an Agatha Christie a day keeps eyesight acuity away.
It looks like it also improves low-light sensitivity, which is arguably more useful than colour sensitivity.
"Rod sensitivity (the ability to see in low light) also improved significantly in those aged around 40 and over,"
> by far the biggest vision problem due to ageing is long-sightedness.
I had cataracts at a young age, and had my natural lenses replaced with fixed-focus implants. There were lots of positives after the procedure, but the downside was an immediate loss of any ability to focus. (Progressive loss of ability to focus is why long-sightedness becomes an issue as you age, and this is a complete loss of that ability in fifteen minutes.)
It may be that I have a 1.5D (intentional) delta in the two lenses, but loss of focusing ability hasn't been that bad so far. In fact, I can now write this on a laptop without any external correction at all. At least from my anecdotal experience, I'd characterize long-sightedness as potentially frustrating, but easily manageable.
What scares me, though, are retinal issues (the ATP loss described in the paper, as well as others). Treatment options there are generally far less effective and far more intrusive.
"...improvements in the function of the retina's photoreceptors when their eyes were exposed to 670 nanometre (long wavelength) deep red light."
Can it be obtained with a normal led light?