This makes me think of Bulletproof Executive's self-improvement blog. He was always talking about mitochondria and hacking cells with certain light wave-lengths and lasers. I thought it was very far-fetched at the time... but maybe he was onto something.
Several years ago, Dave Asprey (Bulletproof Executive) was one of the most positive influences on my diet/wellness. It's too bad that his constant hustle, eccentricity, and "going against the mainstream" attitude rub a lot of people the wrong way.
Me too. These days, to me Dave Asprey's a mixed bag.
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.
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.
You can get a 1nm resolution "science grade" spectrometer for under £1k - I used to design them . You can also buy used ocean optics kit for very reasonable prices on eBay (a few hundred for a USB2000 if you wait).
You might find this of interest - it seems to be a cottage-industry spectrometer selling for £67: "The i-Phos can see wavelengths from approximately 420 - 980nm and their relative (though not their absolute) intensities." http://chriswesley.org/spectrometer.htm
I suspect you do not need to use 670nm exactly, however I suspect you need to be above 650nm. Note that many red LEDs are at a lower wavelength (~630nm). So you need to search for deep red or by wavelength.
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.
Shouldn't it be quite cheap to determine the frequency using a prism, using the angle of refraction? I think you should be able to use known missing frequencies in sunlight to calibrate your set up. Back in a minute going for duckduckgo
So it looks like you need a bit more than a prism to see Fraunhofer lines, but there seem to be online description of how to do it with a with a prism and a CD, maybe you don't even need a prism, there seem to be 'make your own spectroscope' tutorials than mention building one with cereal box, and maybe a lens of some kind
(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.
A perfectly calibrated display might still not be able to display pure wavelengths. At the very least if it's calibrated properly it won't normally do so at #ff0000 as pure 670nm is well outside the sRGB colour space.
Red light is established as a powerful trigger of cell repair mechanisms. Sunlight is a massive source of red light (and other colors) and if you stay indoors as much as the average person does, shining artificial red light on yourself may help make up for deficiencies.
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.
> "Intranasal Light Therapy involves the simple process of clipping a small red light diode to the nose to illuminate the nasal cavity. Researchers have found that this act initiates the process of healing a large number of health conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, sinusitis, dementia and various viral infections." - http://www.drgcohen.com/site/healing-approach/intranasal-lig...
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?]
 does not claim that humming increases production of NO. It claims that humming improves air exchange between the parasinuses (which produce NO) and the nasal cavity. This results in increased exhalation of NO. Production was not measured.
Yes indeed, its interesting the different quantities I've noticed - like up to 17,000 my body really ramps up, I could do that every day, and often do, but I did 30,000 the other day I was tired the next day. Though when I started 5,000 was a major achievement. I'd love to see wider studies on this, like do muscles change? and how etc. I guess sports science focuses on athletes, Is there much average Joe science? apart from weight loss. I'm amazed also at how easy walking is, and how little calories I burn walking - which is why I started - to lose a few pounds.
Do a bit of reading on the mitochondria, ATP and the electron transport chain. I still don't understand exactly the mechanism, but it seems that our cells might share some characteristics with photosynthetic cells, and certain kinds of light might increase energy production on a cellular level. From what I remember in bio class, light energy sets off chain reactions by displacing electrons in photosynthetic cells. This paper was from 2008, and they specifically call out low-intensity red light and near-infrared light. Seems like this idea has been floating around for a while now, and somewhat well backed up.
If only more people would take the time to read the existing literature and studies before they say things like "this is dubious" without having a shred of understanding what it is they are talking about.
While the sample is small, the article states "Researchers built on their previous findings in mice, bumblebees and fruit flies, which all found significant improvements in the function of the retina's photoreceptors when their eyes were exposed to 670 nanometre (long wavelength) deep red light."
This might not be so out-of-the-blue implausible.
Mechanisms are not always obvious. 40 Hertz blinking light has been conclusively proven/replicated to reduce amyloid plaques in mice, which may offer a path towards Alzheimer’s treatment. Most people wouldn’t have believed you before the replications succeeded.
I agree, mechanisms are not always obvious. In the short term the only thing that matters is, "does it work?" If a larger study replicates the positive benefits of red light, well then, let's use it for that purpose!! But I would like to know why...!
There have been persistent claims that cool color-temperature (bluish) light in the evenings disrupts sleep quality. I unfortunately can’t remember if that comes from rigorous studies or pop psychology.
The reason why it may be useful to avoid blue light at night is that circadian rhythms and melatonin production can be disrupted due to ganglion cell stimulation. They are a class of photoreceptors that have peak sensitivity to blue light. They do not appear to contribute much in the way of spatial vision but are important to entrain day night cycles and for pupillary responses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_r...
Doing it on one eye per person would leave people with very unbalanced vision if it works great. That creates a QoL issue. Not enough understanding of the mechanism to then correct the other eye to the same level other than trying a "state at it for the same time approach".
maximum improvement was only 20%, for most none or less than 20% and only in dark enviroment, I don't think few weeks would really make any significant difference or discomfort which could not be reversed during next few weeks when you can exercise the other eye, so that's not really valid reason why not to do it this way
I wonder if our eyes need campfires when we are older, just like they need bright sunlight when children in order to properly develop and function. (Myopia is caused by insufficient bright light as a child.)
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?
Not having a full explanation when there isn't yet one is ok. Genetics is clearly and obviously a major predictor of developing myopia. Any explanation not taking genetics into account is likely very wrong. Or we're goipng to be amazingly surprised! (And maybe in a good way! But sadly, I doubt it.) Genetics explains why being tall is much more prevalent in the Netherlands now. Always had those genetics, now with better nutrition. Eh, hopefully we'll find out.
(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...)
Certainly in some cases it is caused by genetics, but from what I've read, the evidence suggests that some other factor is at play for the overwhelming majority of cases. Here is an excerpt from a nature article which leads me to believe that this is the case.
> East Asia has been gripped by an unprecedented rise in myopia, also known as short-sightedness. Sixty years ago, 10–20% of the Chinese population was short-sighted. Today, up to 90% of teenagers and young adults are. In Seoul, a whopping 96.5% of 19-year-old men are short-sighted.
I don't know how that change is possible in one generation if genetics are to blame. It's possible I'm missing something though.
What proportion of the population had their eye sight measured 60 years ago in China (or anywhere)?
Is it certain that we are comparing like for like? Many more people everywhere do work that requires a lot of reading now than 60 years ago even in the northern Europe so perhaps myopia is more often diagnosed now simply because it is more of a problem in the modern environment.
You don't necessarily have to have measured the prevalence of myopia among children 60 years ago to extrapolate from the prevalence of myopia among 70yo today (since myopia is, by and large, a progressive condition and not typically reversed spontaneously).
Sure, you have to be worried about selection biases of all sorts including survivorship bias (eg. suppose myopic people mostly died before they reached 50), but in general, if myopia is as high or higher among 20yo than 60yo today, it tells you something pretty darn significant.
There are whole companies dedicated to selling this, Google red light therapy and you'll find a few. Novothor is the gold standard for athletes at $100k/pop. I myself jerry-rigged my own comparable unit and bath in it everyday- I haven't noticed eyesight benefits but I'm convinced I feel healthier and stronger as a result.
I am not sure about eye sight, but oddly it was HN where I read abou LLLT previously, this was link shared: https://careclinic.io/low-level-laser-therapy-photobiomodula... Not to spread conspiracies but who would continue to fund this type of research as its non invasive and can essentially weed out the day to day optometrist business complex?
I have my doubts about results of study with only 24 participants aged 28-72 years where they say SOME people over 40 have seen improvements, why don't tell how many of these SOME people were over 40? We will end up with what, 5-10 people who saw some improvement? That's anecdotic evidence.
Similar software with different usage models can be extremely useful and support mentoring and staff development.
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.
I emailed the professor who did the research and asked about 660 vs 670:
"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"
I'm not sure why the comments here seem so dismissive. The mechanism that eyes need red light for regenerative processes is known for a long time I think. I remember a friend working in optics telling me about that a decade ago. Eyes are adapted for sunlight, which is more than plausible.
It's just not popular because it implies that screen use is bad and those unpopular scientific topics are often pushed under the rug.
Frankly my experience with posting sources on HN has almost never been good. It's often just taken as a reason to pick those apart and start a flamewar. My comment above has been downvoted at least 5 times which makes me confident that this is one those times.
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.
What's the wavelength of the red you see when facing the sun with your eyes closed? I remember seeing some claim a few years ago (can't find it right now) that doing that every day would improve eyesight.
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.