You gotta dig into supplement 1 to find the treatment:
") Input power <100VA, input voltage: AC10V-240V, 50Hz/60Hz
版本号 8 : 2.0，20200120 版
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.
>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?
> 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.
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.
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).
> 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.
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.
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!)
>(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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
In my opinion it's not worth it to bother with all of these "tricks". You need to adjust your lifestyle and you'll be able to get rid of myopia the same way you initially got it. Takes years though - I'm down about 3 diopters after 2.5 years.
I didn't have glasses (lens) as a teenager, so I wasn't wearing any up to when I got to about -2.0/-1.5. From that time I was generally wearing glasses more often than not, and my eyesight hasn't dramatically changed. For me your theory simply doesn't hold.
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.
This result is not inconsistent with the "spend more time outdoors" advice. It's using visible red light that's very intense - more than we see indoors, and mechanisms as simple as "triggers dopamine release in the retina" could explain it.
If you really care about myopia prevention in children, take a look at Atropine eye drops. Meta-analysis studies show a consistent and powerful impact on treatment groups, to the point of over 0.5 diopter prevention per year.
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?
All the blue light from monitors and phones are simply too dim to be part of any physiological changes. All the papers that people quote that are of both quality and actually show anything involve blue light far brighter than your monitor; all the papers that are quality but involve relevant brightness show no effect.
There are also papers of low quality, which should not be mentioned, but seem to provide the backbone of the myth.
[+] [-] rngname22|2 years ago|reply
") Input power <100VA, input voltage: AC10V-240V, 50Hz/60Hz 版本号 8 : 2.0，20200120 版 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.
[+] [-] hollerith|2 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] someweirdperson|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] RobotToaster|2 years ago|reply
Maybe the hippies were onto something with those rose tinted glasses, lol.
[+] [-] BobbyJo|2 years ago|reply
Damage really only happens when you get photon burns, which I don't think is possible with closed eyelids and a conventional light-source.
[+] [-] hackernewds|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway290|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevebmark|2 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] someweirdperson|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] elif|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] myself248|2 years ago|reply
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|2 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] vr46|2 years ago|reply
https://johnroseeyecare.co.uk/services/wellbeing/light-thera...
[+] [-] pnw|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34609625
[+] [-] rwl4|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flanbiscuit|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dotancohen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymousiam|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerlam|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YWbR8K0jT4
[+] [-] nyargh|2 years ago|reply
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23462271
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372583
[+] [-] dmitrygr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mywittyname|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] swamp40|2 years ago|reply
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|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epicureanideal|2 years ago|reply
If the study were done longer would it prevent more than 54%?
[+] [-] stevebmark|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aulig|2 years ago|reply
https://wiki.reducedlens.org/wiki/Main_Page
[+] [-] kubanczyk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevebmark|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cubefox|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] herf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrubble|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gpt5|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneed_chucker|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leobg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] neves|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DiabloD3|2 years ago|reply
All the blue light from monitors and phones are simply too dim to be part of any physiological changes. All the papers that people quote that are of both quality and actually show anything involve blue light far brighter than your monitor; all the papers that are quality but involve relevant brightness show no effect.
There are also papers of low quality, which should not be mentioned, but seem to provide the backbone of the myth.
[+] [-] dingleberry|2 years ago|reply