61–70 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do have to, this is why I bought one of those IKEA smart bulbs and made it dark and blue. If I get up at night, I use my watch for light.
Why blue and not red/orange?
I've also read somewhere that even the US Navy is changing to blue in their ships for some readability reasons.
Sorry for exposing my personal medical data, but... I literally cannot fall asleep without at least some light. So I sleep with lights on. Trying to be like normal people would only make my overall health worse. Is this a medical condition that has a name?
Worst thing is to wake up in total darkness in strange place. You dont remember were things are, cannot find the light switch, and start panicking, maybe I am gone blind?
How do they know the causal link? Can it be that people who stay up late sleep less and this causes issues, and there being light is only a consequence of staying up late?
How do they know the causal link? Can it be that people who stay up late sleep less and this causes issues, and there being light is only a consequence of staying up late?
In any case, light sensitivity and sleep patterns are well linked. If you live far away from the equator, you are dealing with pretty short nights half of the year. I lived in Helsinki for a while. That can really mess up your sleep though some people manage to adapt. There's a reason coffee is popular in places like
I currently live in Berlin. I sleep about 2-3 hours less in the summer than in the winter. Somehow that works for me. But it's really annoying to be wide awake at 6 when you've set your alarm for 8. I'm literally typing this on my laptop early morning on a Sunday. But it's light very early this time of year.
I've experimented with wearing sleep masks. They really work. But I find them slightly uncomfortable. What works better is just doing sane things like trying to live healthy. Less alcohol, more sport. Etc. Work stress can cause all sorts of issues with that.
Preprint not peer reviewed. Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” Lemme guess, looking for funding.
> Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best thing to do is to take commonly held knowledge and make a study out of it. Maybe the next study could be “live king cobra in the bed results in sleep reduction”. Probably a book and a TED talk to go with it.
Eh, you never know with studies. They did this one to serve as a classic counterexample: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 You can almost see the grin as they wrote up the results.
The Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center ran a trial on parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft, and gave half the people jumping a placebo (empty backpack) instead of a parachute. No joke.
> People with the brightest nights (90-100th percentiles) had significantly higher risks of developing coronary artery disease (adjusted-HR range: 1.23-1.32), myocardial infarction (aHRs: 1.42-1.47), heart failure (aHRs: 1.45-1.56), atrial fibrillation (aHRs: 1.28-1.32), and stroke (aHRs: 1.28-1.30), compared to people with dark nights (0-50th percentiles).
> These relationships were robust after adjusting for established risk factors for cardiovascular health, including physical activity, smoking, alcohol, diet, sleep duration, socioeconomic status, and polygenic risk. Relationships of night light with risk of heart failure and coronary artery disease were stronger for women, and relationships of night light with risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation were stronger for younger individuals in this cohort.
These relationships were *robust*.
The observed associations between nighttime light exposure and increased incidence of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and stroke may be driven by complex and multifactorial pathways. These cardiovascular conditions can arise from numerous interrelated long- and short-term physiological and behavioral factors, making it difficult to isolate the causal role of nighttime light exposure alone.
It is plausible to hypothesize that if individuals in the lower-exposure group were subjected to increased nighttime light exposure under controlled conditions—where all other lifestyle factors remained constant and stress levels were actively managed—their cardiovascular risk might not increase. This would suggest that ambient light exposure at night, in isolation, may not be a direct etiological factor.
Although the study adjusted for a broad range of established cardiovascular risk factors—including physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, sleep duration, socioeconomic status, and polygenic risk—these adjustments do not capture acute or chronic variations in psychological stress. Since stress is a known contributor to cardiovascular disease, the inability to directly account for its temporal dynamics represents a potential limitation in the interpretation of these findings.
Preprint not peer reviewed. Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” Lemme guess, looking for funding.
What can we do about the tendency of research articles to get their big flash of publicity before undergoing peer review?
some charismatic, intelligent dude or dudette or couple with a curious but rather uneducated mind inviting grad students and scientists to discuss studies and pre-prints and so on, constantly babbling scientifically more or less correct nonsense but getting semantically corrected by the guests or something ... ... so viewers can feel "smartypants" and or relate and learn.
I'm sure there's podcasts but I don't listen to podcasts.
> including physical activity, smoking, alcohol, diet, sleep duration, socioeconomic status, and polygenic risk Wondering how much of this is due to geography and air quality. City centers have relatively bad air quality and a high amount of ambient lighting at night, compared to non urbanized areas. The cardiovascular effects of poor air quality is arguably well understood.
Preprint not peer reviewed. Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” Lemme guess, looking for funding.
> Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” The other edge of the "not impartial" sword: these are people who are highly familiar, likely experts, in the related field. Who else is more qualified to conduct such a study?
Whoever does not have a monetary interest in the studied subject is the one who is more qualified. Same with smoking related research, same with children's toy paint related research. But the third edge is: These are phases of fraud that societies go through. They will happen, some will think they are legit, some won't, they disappear into some third world country after taking their sum. It always works like that. And that's predictive science right there.