Tuesday, December 07, 2021

Morning exposure to deep red light improves declining eyesight - updated 12/7/2021

 I am a night owl.  I wonder if the time period when the red light therapy is effective should be altered to take into account a person's body clock?

 I have sent this question to the scientist, if I hear back, I'll update the post.


Jeffery, Glen    
Nov 29, 2021, 4:19 AM (8 days ago)

That is a very good question and I am very sorry to say that I do not have an answer to it, but I’d love to know. I have a suspicion that there is something about perceived sun rise. When we do experiments of flies, whose vision improves in exactly the same way ours does with red light, the ability to improve is linked to the time the lights go on in the morning.  

There are a lot of “do not knows” still in this field of research. I hope to be a able to fill in some of the holes



 News Release 24-Nov-2021
Peer-Reviewed Publication
University College London


Just three minutes of exposure to deep red light once a week, when delivered in the morning, can significantly improve declining eyesight, finds a pioneering new study by UCL researchers.

Published in Scientific Reports, the study builds on the team’s previous work*, which showed daily three-minute exposure to longwave deep red light ‘switched on’ energy producing mitochondria cells in the human retina, helping boost naturally declining vision. 


In summary, researchers found there was, on average, a 17% improvement in participants’ colour contrast vision when exposed to three minutes of 670 nanometre (long wavelength) deep red light in the morning and the effects of this single exposure lasted for at least a week. 


Despite the clarity of the results, researchers say some of the data are “noisy”. While positive effects are clear for individuals following 670nm exposure, the magnitude of improvements can vary markedly between those of similar ages. Therefore, some caution is needed in interpretating the data. It is possible that there are other variables between individuals that influence the degree of improvement that the researchers have not identified so far and would require a larger sample size.


Only cones not rods were tested in this study; similar previous research identified a comparable effect on cones and rods, satisfying the team any effect on cones could be translated to rods.


There was also an article about this in New Scientist magazine:


No comments:

Post a Comment