[HN Gopher] Effect of repeated low-level red light on myopia pre...
___________________________________________________________________
Effect of repeated low-level red light on myopia prevention
Author : rq1
Score : 79 points
Date : 2023-06-02 17:52 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jamanetwork.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (jamanetwork.com)
| stevebmark wrote:
| Interesting, I wonder what the mechanism of action could be.
| Over-exposure to blue light is potentially related to macular
| degeneration, if blue light causes axial elongation (getting more
| nearsighted, eye getting more football shaped) that could
| potentially be related, since more nearsighted eyes are at higher
| risk for macula issues. There have also been links to red light
| use on the macula improving macular health, but not axial
| changes.
|
| I also wonder, but it seems less likely, if the effect is related
| to defocusing of the eye, from intentionally not being in front
| of a screen for 3 minutes. Holding things close to the face,
| including computer, phone, and book use, causes nearsightnedness
| from emmetropization (NOT from muscle use, muscle strain has
| nothing to do with vision issues).
| myself248 wrote:
| Okay, I've noticed that red-text-on-blue-background or vice-
| versa is super hard to read, because our eyes have quite a bit
| of chromatic aberration and can't focus on both ends of the
| spectrum at the same time.
|
| So is it perhaps just training the eye to focus on the red end
| rather than the blue end, as a sort of exercise?
|
| (Also, did you ever notice that optometrists' signs are always
| deep blue, and thus hard to focus on? Ope, can't even see the
| sign, better head in and get an exam!)
| aatd86 wrote:
| >(NOT from muscle use, muscle strain has nothing to do with
| vision issues).
|
| Eye strain that causes pseudo-pyopia is gznerally thought to be
| triggered by ciliary spasms. The ciliary muscle, as its name
| indicates, is a muscle. So I'm a bit confused here?
| elif wrote:
| I think the prevailing theory is it's not so much about 'what
| red light does', but 'what red light deprivation causes.' the
| improvement is the human body behaving in the conditions it
| developed for.
|
| Light therapy is providing the body with what it is deprived of
| more every generation as we move indoors and replace
| incandescent sources with LED light sources.
| stevebmark wrote:
| I despise the discussions that come out of talking about
| myopia. Everyone completely guesses at how things work, and
| so many people chime talking about things they don't
| understand. Mitochondria specifically respond to red light.
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2996814/
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > I also wonder, but it seems less likely, if the effect is
| related to defocusing of the eye, from intentionally not being
| in front of a screen for 3 minutes.
|
| Unfortunately, the control group did nothing, instead of
| looking at something far away for 3 minutes, that is not red
| light.
|
| Another interesting control group could have used light at the
| other end of the visible range.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Curious that this is considered new. When I was a kid in Russia
| (20 years ago), we had treatment for myopia that was basically
| applying a tube with a lot of red lights in it to your eyes for
| 3-4 minutes, 4 times a day.
| mywittyname wrote:
| The mechanisms for developing myopia have been pretty well
| understood for a while now.
|
| I suspect the lack of an investigation into prevention had more
| to do with people not really caring until now. I bet that
| myopia prevalence in China is approaching 100%, especially for
| "children of the lockdown", and so it's getting critical
| attention as a public health crisis.
|
| There were doctors who had technique for preventing/halting
| myopia from developing in children, but it wasn't this
| mainstream thing, and it certainly wasn't pushed on people.
| neves wrote:
| Should a blue light filter in screens make any difference?
| anonymousiam wrote:
| I wonder if there's a similar study that simply has the kids stay
| outdoors in natural sunlight for some number of hours per day?
| jerlam wrote:
| China, where the prevalence of myopia is near 90% for high-
| schoolers, has mandated less screen time, less homework, and
| required outdoor time. It appears to have some effect as
| there's a small decrease in myopia:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YWbR8K0jT4
| nyargh wrote:
| Two such studies are cited in the paper
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23462271
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372583
| shrubble wrote:
| Wonder if being gathered around a fire each night kept
| hunter/gatherer people from developing myopia?
| vr46 wrote:
| Heh, once again, my old optician John Rose in London is some
| years ahead of the curve, I'll be darned. He's had this red light
| therapy bed installed at his practice for a few years now.
|
| https://johnroseeyecare.co.uk/services/wellbeing/light-thera...
| epicureanideal wrote:
| I wonder if it can cure adult myopia or just prevent some of it
| in kids?
|
| If the study were done longer would it prevent more than 54%?
| stevebmark wrote:
| There is no known cure for adult nor childhood myopia. Axial
| elongation is permanent. It can only be slowed, and maybe
| stopped, but not reversed.
| vr46 wrote:
| Miyosmart lenses for kids have proven to be excellent so far,
| but I have become happy with my myopic superpower of
| magnification. Just hope my eyes don't fall apart internally
| as I get old.
| cosmorider wrote:
| Wrong. Look up endmyopia.org and watch this video:
| https://youtu.be/x5Efg42-Qn0
| stevebmark wrote:
| That's great that a philosophy major has a blog and a
| Facebook group for his pet theory. There is no science
| here. I hate how vapid the this space is, there is so much
| guesswork and making things up. His comment about wearing
| underpowered lenses for example, has been repeatedly shown
| to either have no effect or worsen myopia
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cxo.12978
| His idea that you can look at slightly doubled things in
| defocus and work to "fuse" them is insane, he just did
| something on a walk by chance and then somehow claimed it's
| part of the process.
|
| Again, as far as science knows, there is no way to reverse
| myopia. It's like asking how to make your liver less
| elongated. The tissue has grown into the shape it's in, it
| doesn't reshape itself over time.
| aatd86 wrote:
| I did it partially so your hard statements might need to
| be toned down.
|
| I have proof from several opthalmologist exams just in
| case one wonders. And the reversal has been subsequent
| (several diopters).
|
| Although I haven't exactly followed the protocols on
| endmyopia but am aware of their existence, I have been
| scientific enough to try so I have this anecdotal result
| that it is possible at least.
|
| As far as science knows, axial elongation is reversible
| in rhesus monkeys and isn't even fixed in the first
| place.
| leobg wrote:
| Read somewhere of an old lady who kept her eyes sharp by facing
| the sun with closed eyelids every day. Don't remember the source,
| but I think it might even have been on HN. Anyone else?
| cubefox wrote:
| These results sound great. I fear only that it will take a very
| long time before any of this becomes an approved treatment. They
| probably require more studies, and for that first money needs to
| be organized. And then the study itself needs to be organized.
| And finally conducted over several years. And then perhaps they
| require yet another, bigger study. By that time millions of kids
| around the world will be grown up to have myopia. Too late to be
| treated.
| elif wrote:
| Approved for red light? There are no restrictions on buying red
| LED's.. Whose approval are you waiting on?
|
| Skin health, scar healing, muscle pain relief, take your pick
| of reasons to use R/IR light therapy. It takes hardly any
| effort.
| cubefox wrote:
| See other thread on how this works. I'm sure parents won't
| buy such devices without some very official stamp. Until then
| they are probably also forbidden to market it as what it is.
| It anyway looks like something that should be provided by
| school and kindergarten.
| dingleberry wrote:
| how about plus lens therapy?
| pnw wrote:
| There was a recent HN thread on a similar topic. I bought the
| glasses from https://www.eye-power.co.uk/ mentioned in the
| thread.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34609625
| flanbiscuit wrote:
| I also bought these and I used them twice and then have
| forgotten all about them until right now. I'll have to put a
| reminder to start using them again, it's only 3 minutes once a
| week.
| rwl4 wrote:
| I ordered one about a year ago and forgot all about it. After a
| few apologies for the lateness of the shipping, the order never
| arrived. This comment reminded me, so I just emailed them to
| see what's up.
| dotancohen wrote:
| How long have you been using it? Have you noticed any effects?
| pnw wrote:
| Only for a few weeks. No obvious effects yet.
|
| They are 670nm which is close to this study (650nm?)
| moffkalast wrote:
| Yeah I also bought a "photo red" 665nm 1W diode after that
| last thread, stared at it occasionally at low power and
| never noticed any difference. I guess it's one of those
| things you gotta do for several decades and unless you
| leave one eye as a control there's nothing to compare to
| anyway.
| swamp40 wrote:
| Would love to solve this one day.
|
| Almost positive its a recent phenomenon. Would like to know that
| as well.
|
| Tesla's father chastised him for reading by candlelight. Thought
| it would "spoil his eyes".
| moron4hire wrote:
| Luxottica will kill it if it ever comes close to becoming a
| viable treatment.
| jtwaleson wrote:
| It's such a horrible monopoly. Please try to purchase your
| glasses at non affiliated stores.
| qzw wrote:
| Or will they have a monopoly on the therapeutic red light
| glasses that all kids will need? After all, the market could
| be even bigger than now because all parents would want to
| make sure their kids get their daily dose of red light.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Did they kill corrective surgery?
| rngname22 wrote:
| You gotta dig into supplement 1 to find the treatment:
|
| ") Input power <100VA, input voltage: AC10V-240V, 50Hz/60Hz Ban
| Ben Hao 8 : 2.0,20200120 Ban 2) Low-level single-wavelength
| red-light wavelength: 650nm+-10nm 3) Diameter of low-level
| single-wavelength red-light cursor: 7mm+-3mm, spot at the
| observation port: 10mm +- 2mm 4) Light source output power:
| 2.0mW+-0.5mW; At a distance of 100mm: 1.07-1.42mw
|
| ...the intervention group are treated with the intervention
| instrument twice a day from Monday to Friday, three minutes each
| time, with an interval of at least 4 hours (morning break before
| school and afternoon break before school), under the supervision
| of the school teacher/coordinator in addition to routine study
| and life. All children have a unique corresponding personal
| account and password. They need to swipe the card and log in the
| system for verification before starting the intervention
| device.... the optical energy will stop automatically after three
| minutes of use, leave the blue eye patch, close your eyes and
| rest for 3-5 minutes until the light spots before your eyes
| disappear."
|
| ^ So it sounds like the students might even have light spots
| (temporary blindness)? for a few minutes after the treatment.
|
| No use of near-infrared (in the 850nm range), only red light (in
| the 650 range), so if attempting to recreate at home make sure
| the red light therapy device is in 650 not red + infrared
| combination as many are. Though if you Google you can find plenty
| of studies and resources suggesting NIR can be safe and effective
| for the eyes as well.
|
| I use red and NIR for collagen boosting on the skin but had until
| now been too afraid to directly expose my closed eyelids w/o
| protective goggles as I noticed light spots (I use a close-up
| helmet). Taking the leap of faith and using light therapy to the
| point that I have light spots for a few minutes after treatment
| as described in the study is a leap of faith that I'm afraid may
| be beyond me.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > You gotta dig into supplement 1 to find the treatment: "[...]
| Light source output power: 2.0mW+-0.5mW; At a distance of
| 100mm: 1.07-1.42mw"
|
| Elsewhere it said class 2, which would be < 1 mW. A laser
| pointer.
|
| > I use red and NIR for collagen boosting on the skin but had
| until now been too afraid to directly expose my closed eyelids
| w/o protective goggles as I noticed light spots (I use a close-
| up helmet). Taking the leap of faith and using light therapy to
| the point that I have light spots for a few minutes after
| treatment as described in the study is a leap of faith that I'm
| afraid may be beyond me.
|
| That's a lot more power. I would avoid anything outside of the
| visible range and lasers with too much power. For those natural
| self protection mechanism probably only kicks in when its too
| late.
| EGreg wrote:
| So it requires supplements?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| I wonder if just wearing glasses with a wratten 29 filter would
| work?
|
| Maybe the hippies were onto something with those rose tinted
| glasses, lol.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| I'm not a doctor, but I believe the mechanism that causes spots
| isn't harmful. It's a form of exhaustion of the sensing cells
| and doesn't necessarily damage them.
|
| Damage really only happens when you get photon burns, which I
| don't think is possible with closed eyelids and a conventional
| light-source.
| arghwhat wrote:
| However, you must be very careful around possible IR or UV
| sources as there will be no reflex to keep your eyes closed,
| look away or close your pupils! You will at most feel the
| warmth of the light source in the skin of your face, at which
| point it is likely too late.
|
| If intentionally sticking your head in a strong light source,
| wear eye protection.
| rf15 wrote:
| > It's a form of exhaustion of the sensing cells and doesn't
| necessarily damage them.
|
| As someone with experience in the field: this is half true at
| best, since you can get the same symptons with proper,
| permanent and irreversible damage. Claiming it is "just
| exhaustion" is a dangerous attitude to have.
| hinkley wrote:
| There are optical illusions where you stare at a highly
| saturated color for a while and then close your eyes, seeing
| a negative of the image you stared at in your eyes.
|
| Continuous color sensing is just one of the fictions our
| brains tell us unfortunately. If you play outside without
| sunglasses you will find that everything inside looks
| extremely dark. That's not just pupil contraction, although
| that plays a role. The photo receptors in your eye have a
| recharge rate, and very loud colors can exceed that. Your
| brain keeps adjusting to compensate but you can catch it via
| rapid changes, like closing your eyes.
| hollerith wrote:
| >if you Google you can find plenty of studies and resources
| suggesting NIR can be safe and effective for the eyes as well.
|
| Infrared in the eye causes cataracts, a fact that is all over
| Google search results. Workers in steel mills for example are
| about 26 times more likely to need cataract surgery than others
| their age, but maybe it is not the near-infrared fraction doing
| that?
|
| I've seen many studies of the effects of red light on the eye,
| but none of the effects of NIR on the eye, but in avoiding
| exposing the eyes of experimental human subjects to NIR, maybe
| researchers are using an overabundance of caution?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Wasn't that supposed to be UV damage?
| hollerith wrote:
| UV might cause cataracts, too.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Avoid looking at any kind of light, got it.
| heyoni wrote:
| Except the light you can't see :D
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| They light is dangerous too. You do not want to put you
| had in a microwave oven.
|
| There is no hope.
| nomel wrote:
| You can melt rocks with any wavelength, it really depends on
| the power, cataracts included (assuming non ionizing
| wavelengths).
|
| I work for hours in my VR headset, with eye tracking
| enabled...I should probably check up on what that power is.
|
| edit: My point seems to have been missed. IR in the eyes will
| cause cataracts, but it requires extreme power. It's the
| heating from the extreme power causing the cataracts, not the
| wavelength of the photons. The wavelength of the photon just
| helps that power get absorbed in a way that it's not noticed
| by things like the retina. IR lasers are especially dangerous
| because you won't look away/blink, or know _besides_ feeling
| the heat.
| geeB wrote:
| The molten metal is what radiates the IR
| [deleted]
| hollerith wrote:
| No one uses electromagnetic radiation to melt steel or help
| make steel.
| nomel wrote:
| Well, that's technically false [1]. Metal laser
| cutting/surfacing is common. My point was (besides
| ionizing radiation), it's not the wavelength that
| matters, it's the intensity. I changed "steel" to "rocks"
| to help make the point clear.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5vsUta5lmo
|
| https://fairmontmachinery.com/30kw-on-1-inch-steel/
| narrator wrote:
| The wavelength is very important too. 808nm is damaging to
| the eyes for example, but has wound healing properties when
| applied directly to injuries[1]. This kind of stuff is a
| great example of the vast trove of interesting research that
| nobody outside the alt health world will ever do much with.
|
| [1]https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=80
| 8n...
| giantg2 wrote:
| Most people in the health field don't know about a lot of
| it either. Unless they're a researcher, they just stick to
| the protocol on their Epic screen for the most part.
| hackernewds wrote:
| tangent, does the collagen production work and produce healthy
| skin for you?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-02 23:01 UTC)