Effect of repeated low-level red light on myopia prevention
jamanetwork.com
jamanetwork.com
") 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.
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?
[1]https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=808n...
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.
There is no hope.
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.
Maybe the hippies were onto something with those rose tinted glasses, lol.
Damage really only happens when you get photon burns, which I don't think is possible with closed eyelids and a conventional light-source.
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.
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.
If intentionally sticking your head in a strong light source, wear eye protection.
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).
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.
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.
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!)
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?
https://johnroseeyecare.co.uk/services/wellbeing/light-thera...
They are 670nm which is close to this study (650nm?)
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.
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".
If the study were done longer would it prevent more than 54%?
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.
That field didn't exist 30-40 years ago, and it is increasingly common now treating conditions (not myopia) that were previously thought to be non-reversible. But who knows what the future holds.
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.
Source?
There is one important study linked in there that I haven't seen before, which I'm guessing the grandparent comment is referring to: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23493295/ Assuming this effect isn't the same as the irrelevant short term effect, maybe there's something here. This study is kind of weird as non-standard meta analysis where they didn't do the trials themselves.
It's also important to call out that myopia happens primarily in youth, as the eye continuously grows to find focus. For most people this stops between 20-30 years old. The eye stops growing in response to over-focus. If there is a way to reverse myopia in humans (which there is still no evidence for, even with your link), then it may only be possible in youth, not adulthood, when the eye has stopped growing.
Rather than correcting my vision to 100%, they attempted to "cure" it with exercises and "print pushing". Newsflash, it didn't work.
Stop recommending this.
Myopia is usually caused by a combination of lifestyle and lens use. For example looking at a phone 33.33cm away is equivalent to wearing a -3 lens and looking into the distance.
Skin health, scar healing, muscle pain relief, take your pick of reasons to use R/IR light therapy. It takes hardly any effort.
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.