Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

neuroai.science

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 257 posts

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#101

Post by cgriswald »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #80
jack_pp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear, even on monitor, night and day difference at a push of a button. I'm not arguing if this helps you sleep better but it is pretty arrogant of you to tell me I can't figure out from my own experience if something is comfortable or not.

Nobody really cares if it's comfortable or not for you , the debate at hand is whether it's measurably more comfortable for the population at large .

That’s how it should be but the poster is literally calling the individual experiences of others “superstition” based on the population at large.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#102

Post by nsxwolf »

tartoran wrote: post #86
cellularmitosis wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on “no way back”?

I meant that once you decide to wear prescription optics you can’t go back to not wearing them, of course excluding eye surgery. In my case I could stick to good enough vision and luckily 20 years later Im still not wearing glasses. My main point was that I was getting eye strain from blue light and once I reduced it the problem dissapeared.

This isn’t true? Myopia develops rapidly in youth then stabilizes in adulthood. It gets a worse with age, not corrective lenses. Then sometime after 40 you flip to presbyopia when your lenses lose flexibility.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#103

Post by IAmBroom »

Groxx wrote: post #60
SoftTalker wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So buy 5mg, and split the tablet in half.

that'd give you 2.5mg, which is still almost 10x more than what I linked. it's possible to split and separate them enough of course, but beyond "roughly half" it gets rather difficult. I've considered getting the liquid ones and a micro-dropper for smaller doses (if they'd even be small enough, many combinations are not), but 0.3mg pills are rather convenient and worth the small amount of money for me.

Some research indicates people over 50 (includes me) achieve best results at 0.3 microgram dosage, which is 1,000 lower(!). Higher dosages reduce the effect.

You might take a quick sec to look into the data. You can buy 5mcg on Amazon, although 5 mg is more common (and 10mg, and ...).

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#104

Post by rkomorn »

IAmBroom wrote: post #93
pclowes wrote: post #32

You can just do things. Not everything needs a study, you don’t have to justify yourself to anyone! Try things, if you like them, do them! Try not living a neurotic “study” based life, I am trying it and its pretty great!

I am aware that meta-studies of glucosamine chondroitin show No Significant Gains in joint pain. I would never waste my money on it. But my newly adopted dog had hip issues, and I bought a few months worth of a diet supplement in the hopes of doing something meaningf... dammit, it's glucosamine. They claimed double-blind studies showed decreases in limping in just two months. Two months, more or less, I stopped seein…

I found it interesting that placebo effect is also sort of relevant in pet care: it makes owners believe the pet is doing better.

Unfortunately, the study that showed this used the same medicine my dog had been on, and since it was for epilepsy, I can totally believe that whether I thought it worked had no connection to its effectiveness.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#105

Post by taeric »

aethrum wrote: post #9

They absolutely help my eyes not be so strained. If its placebo, its a working placebo. >Are people actually using Night Shift? >Aggravatingly, yes. What is the authors problem lol? It feels a lot better on eyeballs to use warm light things. Why does he care?

I find it somewhat pleasant, but by far the best thing I did to help my eye strain was greatly lower the brightness. Basically, I was told to make it so that my phone's camera could see something on the screen and my desk at the same time without washing out.

After doing that, I have found that the "temperature" of the screen doesn't really matter to me that heavily.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#106

Post by AshamedCaptain »

crazygringo wrote: post #97
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"feels good to me" and "helps me sleep more easily" are about the same thing: flimsy and almost non-quantifiable personal experiences. About the same level with "I dream of nicer things". > And many, many other people have written that it does the same for them. So people write for homeopathy. Homepathy actually is the precursor for using this type of "evidence" for development and study of new "drugs" (hint: this ev…

I think you have not actually understood what I wrote, because of this part: >> My point is, nothing in this article does establish that it is "actually bullshit". > Why not? I've already said it multiple times. Allow me to repeat myself: > make the elemental mistake that showing one biological mechanism doesn't have an effect, means no other mechanisms can either. You've written a lot, but you haven't understood tha…

Certainly you can claim that because not all mechanisms have been disproven yet, then there could still be an effect. That is why I quote Russell's teapot. Your claims are technically not disproven, and may not even be possible to disprove, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the teapot is (most definitely) bullshit. This is what the example of Russell's teapot is trying to show.

I also keep continuously putting the example of homeopathy because it is exactly the same. Homeopathy has plenty of (weak) evidence, but no known mechanism of action. All the proposed religious, memory of water, etc. have been disproved. Certainly you can argue that homeopathy could still be a thing because there could be some physical/biological mechanism that has not yet been disproved! But this is just nitpicking: homeopathy is still bullshit. In the same way that a teapot in space is bullshit.

Anything else is a (useless) nitpick.

In any case, even from day #1 it's been known that blue light could possibly have a mechanism, but there's always been a big stretch from there to claiming that blue light filters/night shift have an effect, and the evidence for the latter is substantially lacking. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/blue-light/

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#107

Post by wat10000 »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #53
jack_pp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it superstition to deduce that I get gassy after eating beans? I need a scientific study to tell me this? Same for if a screen hurts my eyes (not long term, like truly my eyes hurt) when using bright white colors at night.

Yes, actually, if someone has direct scientific evidence contrary to the claim (I doubt such evidence exists for your first example as to the best of my knowledge the relationship between beans and gastrointestinal changes is well understood). Your eyes could hurt for a variety of reasons - brightness, too long screen time, being dry for external reasons, etc. Most humans are poor at identifying the cause of one-off…

If your eyes routinely hurt when doing something, and then they stop routinely hurting after you make a change, that's pretty good reason to believe that there's a causal effect there.

Sometimes the causality is clear enough that you don't need sophisticated science to figure it out. Did you know that the only randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of parachutes at preventing injury and death when jumping out of an airplane found that there is no effect? Given that, do you believe there really is no effect?

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#109

Post by anonymars »

crazygringo wrote: post #47

These are the kinds of articles that give science a bad name, and that make people anti-science. You might as well try to claim hot tea doesn't help you get to sleep, or reading before bed doesn't, or whatever else you do to wind down. I personally don't care if some narrow hypothesis about blue light and melanopsin is false. I know that low, warm, amber-tinted light in the evening slows me down in a way that low, co…

> But this type of article is bad science writing. It shows why one hypothesis as to why a warmer color temperature would result in one other physiological change isn't supported

I don't know if I'd even give them that credit (emphasis mine):

> Halving the luminance, at best (around 20 lux baseline) might get you from 50% to 25% melatonin suppression.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#110

Post by TACIXAT »

I have had success with an extremely aggressive red filter. My unchecked sleep schedule has me going to bed around 4 am, consistent over decades. I don't consume caffeine or any other stimulant. In the last 4 months I switched my lights to LED bulbs to turn red at 6pm and use QRedshift on Linux (Mint) with the temperature set to 1000k at 6pm. I have consistently been falling asleep around midnight. What is remarkable to me is that I am actually feeling tired at night.
Post reply on HN