Lack of sunlight during the day is worse than electric lighting at night(english.elpais.com)
english.elpais.com
Lack of sunlight during the day is worse than electric lighting at night
https://english.elpais.com/health/2023-12-01/chronobiologist-and-nobel-laureate-in-medicine-michael-rosbash-lack-of-sunlight-during-the-day-is-worse-than-electric-lighting-at-night.html
257 comments
> I live in the upper midwest and, like many other places, don't get much light in the winter.
Not to one-up here, but the UK gets around 60 hours on sunshine across the whole of November, compared to Minnesota at about 115.
Europe north of the Mediterranean is gloomy beyond basically anywhere populated in North America.
Not to one-up here, but the UK gets around 60 hours on sunshine across the whole of November, compared to Minnesota at about 115.
Europe north of the Mediterranean is gloomy beyond basically anywhere populated in North America.
For sure. I'm in Wisconsin, and when I see maps about where Europe would be overlayed compared to the US in terms of latitude, it's a shock. I feel like we get such little light in the winter months, but turns out I live middle of France, while you in the UK is much further north.
Some theorize that the absolute misery of Northwestern Europe during winter is what led to the scientific revolution, industrialization, etc.
Not because the people were brilliant. Simply because they were forced inside and had lots of time to think.
Not because the people were brilliant. Simply because they were forced inside and had lots of time to think.
This seems like an opportune moment to remind/notify any fellow UK dark-dwellers that the NHS recommends taking vitamin D supplements here in the winter.
Tbf we've had a particularly sunny Autumn/Winter so far.
I lived in northern Germany (55°N) a few years after living most of my life at 42°N in the US. The lack of natural light in the winter was brutal.
Poland here, same thing. Summers are great, but winters are basically 3-months long country-wide depressions.
It's made even worse by the fact we use the same timezone in Poland that Spain uses. So it's bright in the winter at 7, but it gets dark at 15:00 :/ If you work 8-16 as most people do - you get up in the dark, commute in the dawn, work while the sun is in the sky, and comute back in the dark...
I would much prefer if we moved 1 or 2 hours east timezone-wise. I'm fine with comuting in the dark one-way, but please give me at least 1 hour of sunlight after work...
It's made even worse by the fact we use the same timezone in Poland that Spain uses. So it's bright in the winter at 7, but it gets dark at 15:00 :/ If you work 8-16 as most people do - you get up in the dark, commute in the dawn, work while the sun is in the sky, and comute back in the dark...
I would much prefer if we moved 1 or 2 hours east timezone-wise. I'm fine with comuting in the dark one-way, but please give me at least 1 hour of sunlight after work...
Endless summer nights are a nice flipside though.
I relocated to Redmond, WA for a few years to work at MSFT. Let me tell you, every winter there felt like a sadistic game show called "How Miserable Can You Get?" And boy, did I win!
Thankfully, the good ol' USA is a massive country, so I hit the eject button and moved to FL.
3154 hours of sun in FL compared to 2170 hours of sun in WA. Huuuuuuge difference in mental and physical aptitude. I feel more energetic. More focus, more workouts, more horny, less self loathing.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-sun...
Thankfully, the good ol' USA is a massive country, so I hit the eject button and moved to FL.
3154 hours of sun in FL compared to 2170 hours of sun in WA. Huuuuuuge difference in mental and physical aptitude. I feel more energetic. More focus, more workouts, more horny, less self loathing.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-sun...
When I was at UW in the dorms I felt bad for the students who came from southeast US, they’d start school like end of September, and then leave beginning of June and go back home and essentially only get the worst of western Washington weather, and miss out on what is absolutely amazing weather and sunshine in the summer months.
If we only experienced western Washington for those months hardly anyone would stay, but those summer months are so incredible it makes it worth enduring the dreary gray for a good amount of people.
If we only experienced western Washington for those months hardly anyone would stay, but those summer months are so incredible it makes it worth enduring the dreary gray for a good amount of people.
I'm in the PNW and the gray gloomy weather is a delight for me. I love mushroom foraging, love being surrounded by trees, the beautiful waterfalls, the wet hikes, the moss everywhere, the berry picking, everything! I used to live in a VERY sunny state, I found it depressing. Sun irritates me. I never realized how uncomfortable it made me until I moved to a rainy cloud region and felt at home for the first time. Really shows there's something for everyone!
I miss the mountains. The backdrop is gorgeous. I lived in Vancouver,BC for a few years and my god it is cheffs-kiss beautiful in summer.
The hikes are serendipitous.
Post pandemic, housing got bat shit crazy though.
The hikes are serendipitous.
Post pandemic, housing got bat shit crazy though.
I can't believe Florida gets nearly 1000 hours more of sunlight a year, a fun TIL from HN!
Florida is a great place to live if you're white, straight, and cis, but otherwise it's a shithole.
What about Miami? I would not think a black/brown gay or trans person would feel uncomfortable there?
Or is it like the state politics? Like someone who loved Portland might hate eastern Oregon, but the state of Oregon as a majority is more progressive so it’s ok?
Personally I care far more about local politics/culture than state or national politics/culture and would rather be in a state opposed to my way of life, while in a city that isn’t, than vice versa. Though ideally both, but can’t always have it all.
Or is it like the state politics? Like someone who loved Portland might hate eastern Oregon, but the state of Oregon as a majority is more progressive so it’s ok?
Personally I care far more about local politics/culture than state or national politics/culture and would rather be in a state opposed to my way of life, while in a city that isn’t, than vice versa. Though ideally both, but can’t always have it all.
> I would not think a black/brown gay or trans person would feel uncomfortable there?
I can tell you've never had to deal with the Miami-Dade Police Department
I can tell you've never had to deal with the Miami-Dade Police Department
Definitely have not.
Are police in Seattle, or SF better then?
Florida seems like it’s terrible if you’re white. The weather is actively hostile towards you. People must spend a fortune on sunscreen. The vision of blue eyed people is relatively worse in bright light.
That’s painting with a pretty broad stroke…
I lived in that godforsaken state for fifteen years of my life (most of that time spent trying to get out) - both in Central Florida and what they call the Treasure Coast. Spent a lot of time in Miami as well.
Everywhere was a shithole with backwards, ignorant people spouting their hateful bullshit, and none of my gay/lesbian/trans friends ever felt really safe (the only places where they felt more comfortable were Miami so long as the police weren't involved and Key West during tourist season).
I barely felt safe there as a bisexual man, and avoided an attempted gay bashing because I was concealed carrying a gun and made it clear that I _would_ use it. The only way I felt safe from homophobes at night was if I was carrying.
The sooner the Atlantic Ocean reclaims Florida the better.
Everywhere was a shithole with backwards, ignorant people spouting their hateful bullshit, and none of my gay/lesbian/trans friends ever felt really safe (the only places where they felt more comfortable were Miami so long as the police weren't involved and Key West during tourist season).
I barely felt safe there as a bisexual man, and avoided an attempted gay bashing because I was concealed carrying a gun and made it clear that I _would_ use it. The only way I felt safe from homophobes at night was if I was carrying.
The sooner the Atlantic Ocean reclaims Florida the better.
I don't have SAD(at least to a degree I notice), but I do occasionally daydream of having something like this artificial sunlight in my windowless office at work. If only I had more space. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6bqBsHSwPgw
I bought two of these bulbs. Trying them out! Thanks for you putting out your thought process and solution.
What are the pros and cons of those lamps vs those sold as "grow lamps" and those sold as "UFO" high bay lights?
Is there any >=100W (actual, not equivalent) sunlight-like bulb available that is dimmable and programmable via ZigBee or other means?
Is there any >=100W (actual, not equivalent) sunlight-like bulb available that is dimmable and programmable via ZigBee or other means?
The glow lamp I have is ~4x4 inch square panel, and it can get decently bright where I can feel some energy in my eyes and a difference in mood. That's what I've used for the past couple years. The thing I found with it is that it's almost like an orb, where there's energy glowing from it, but the rest of the area is still dark.
With the corn bulbs, it blasts energy and more light all over, which makes a much bigger difference in vibe. I can't comment on the lux difference (I'm actually getting a lux meter today so I can get a better number in comparison), but with more light all over the room, I can feel much more energy overall.
LED light panels are the other thing I think you mention, and I haven't tested with those. I picked corn bulbs to try first. Compared to the marketed mood lamps, the bigger panels would also light the whole room for a better vibe.
I don't think there are dimmable LED type higher power bulbs or panels. On or off for them. I'm planning to get more lights, and then maybe see if there's a way to create shades to put over them to change the color and amount depending on day.
For now, I'm keeping the lamps powered until ~6pm, and then back to the old light I had before to get ready for sleep.
With the corn bulbs, it blasts energy and more light all over, which makes a much bigger difference in vibe. I can't comment on the lux difference (I'm actually getting a lux meter today so I can get a better number in comparison), but with more light all over the room, I can feel much more energy overall.
LED light panels are the other thing I think you mention, and I haven't tested with those. I picked corn bulbs to try first. Compared to the marketed mood lamps, the bigger panels would also light the whole room for a better vibe.
I don't think there are dimmable LED type higher power bulbs or panels. On or off for them. I'm planning to get more lights, and then maybe see if there's a way to create shades to put over them to change the color and amount depending on day.
For now, I'm keeping the lamps powered until ~6pm, and then back to the old light I had before to get ready for sleep.
No, I meant gRow lamps that are marketed to help to grow plants indoor, and thus presumably have a light spectrum that is natural (although they also include UV light, so it's not clear if they are safe).
Oh! Good question. Not sure, but having lights that come closer and closer to legit sun shine throughout the day would seem like the ideal end goal. If the grow lights already are tuned for that, then they could definitely good ones to try.
I went practically 10 years without seeing the sun (jail) and I always wonder what damage it did to me, if any.
I vaguely recall a study long ago where they took 2 groups of prisoners of the most dangerous kind and did regular blood work on one group giving them vitamin supplements. After some months the guards chose to leave all the cell doors open, they were sitting in the hallway in groups playing board games, making music, singing, telling stories. The guards thought it was pretty funny. The other group was still doing their gang warfare, getting into fights, making primitive weapons and killing each other.
Lack of D wouldn't be good for the brain. Symptoms of Shortage could be bone pain, muscle weakness, fatigue, cardiovascular disease, asthma etc but those are things you would notice.
Lack of D wouldn't be good for the brain. Symptoms of Shortage could be bone pain, muscle weakness, fatigue, cardiovascular disease, asthma etc but those are things you would notice.
I definitely suffered bone pain, muscle weakness and fatigue, even while trying to work out every day. I can't speak for the cardiovascular issues. No asthma. I did try to maintain a low-carb diet for the 10 years I was locked up to try to balance things out.
In which country is it legal to incarcerate people without any access to sunlight?
It is legal in the US to utilize solitary confinement methods that are implemented 24 hours a day. [1] There are facilities without windows and some keep the lights on all day and night in their solitary confinement units. [2]
In a recent story, D3f4ult discussed that this happened to him for a year and he was given 24/7 isolation for one year. [2]
[1]: https://solitarywatch.org/facts/faq/ [2]: https://journalistsresource.org/home/solitary-confinement-re... [3]: https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/139/
In a recent story, D3f4ult discussed that this happened to him for a year and he was given 24/7 isolation for one year. [2]
[1]: https://solitarywatch.org/facts/faq/ [2]: https://journalistsresource.org/home/solitary-confinement-re... [3]: https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/139/
This is so barbarian, I’m sorry.
I understand that some prisoners are so dangerous that you might want to deny them contact to other prisoners. But you can still provide them with a view of the sky and some fresh air time every day.
It comes down to money, sadly. It costs too much to provide secure windows or provide outdoor space for fresh air.
It doesn't have to do with money. The cheapest fucking thing in the world is sunlight.
it is completely about barbarian, punitive, punishment. it doesn't work, but it makes many of us feel good, so we continue doing it.
it is completely about barbarian, punitive, punishment. it doesn't work, but it makes many of us feel good, so we continue doing it.
meiraleal(3)
My first five years were with the lights on 24/7.
Windowless dorms come to mind.
Prior comments from the person suggest Cook County and Illinois within the USA, all in pre-trail as a result of not being wealthy enough to foot a bail bond.
USA. Many county and federal jails are built right in the center of dense populated areas like downtowns. They don't want you looking out, they don't want you looking in. Also, they are very space restricted as they cannot grow in any direction, so space for recreation is not available.
I once had to do a deposition with a warden, so I asked him straight out how they got away with this. His answer was "math". Basically he said "Look, jails are short term facilities, the average stay here is 30 days. Nobody is going to come to harm in 30 days."
The problem with the word "average" is that it is very misleading. When say 50% of those arrested are able to bail out within hours, that brings the average down considerably, compared to the other significant part of the population who have been in there up to 11 years waiting for trial.
I once had to do a deposition with a warden, so I asked him straight out how they got away with this. His answer was "math". Basically he said "Look, jails are short term facilities, the average stay here is 30 days. Nobody is going to come to harm in 30 days."
The problem with the word "average" is that it is very misleading. When say 50% of those arrested are able to bail out within hours, that brings the average down considerably, compared to the other significant part of the population who have been in there up to 11 years waiting for trial.
According to the rumours of torture being committed there against Julian Assange, the UK seems a likely candidate
I was thinking the US, but UK would fit too I guess.
What are the rumours?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
(Title: The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange)
(Title: The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange)
[deleted]
doing what in Jail?
Time, presumably.
for doing what?
Nothing. You don't do anything in jail except look at the walls. Jails are for those waiting for trial. Prisons are for those convicted of crimes.
downvoted for what? He could be working there, or served by hacking and want to talk about it. If people post they were in jail in a post about "sunlight during the day", the "in jail for what?" should be expected..
For fruit flies.
Also, what?
>... circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex and have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon.
Also, what?
>... circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex and have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon.
> Also, what?
Is this about that circadian rhythm line? It look true, if not under-stated. Shift between nights and days was one of the major constant things throughout the evolution of life. And the influence of this rhythm goes deeper than just physiology - it reaches a molecular level. Almost every cell in the body has a mechanism for keeping internal time of the day [1]. And they are kept in synch through suprachiasmatic nucleus, mainly via the light through the retina, changes in temperature, and food intake [2].
It is so prevalent, that even small things, like your sense of smell or which nasal side is more active and which one is congested falls under circadian regulation [3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_clock
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprachiasmatic_nucleus
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_cycle
Is this about that circadian rhythm line? It look true, if not under-stated. Shift between nights and days was one of the major constant things throughout the evolution of life. And the influence of this rhythm goes deeper than just physiology - it reaches a molecular level. Almost every cell in the body has a mechanism for keeping internal time of the day [1]. And they are kept in synch through suprachiasmatic nucleus, mainly via the light through the retina, changes in temperature, and food intake [2].
It is so prevalent, that even small things, like your sense of smell or which nasal side is more active and which one is congested falls under circadian regulation [3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_clock
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprachiasmatic_nucleus
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_cycle
I doubt it's that the circadian rhythm is news to the person you're replying to, but rather that that line is fairly badly written, particularly the "want sex and have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon" part.
Summarizing:
> [They] are the [...] changes [...] that [...] modulate when we [...] have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon.
That does not read clearly to me!
Summarizing:
> [They] are the [...] changes [...] that [...] modulate when we [...] have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon.
That does not read clearly to me!
>I doubt it's that the circadian rhythm is news to the person you're replying to, but rather that that line is fairly badly written, particularly the "want sex and have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon" part
That was the best written part of the description, and was written with a clear intention.
The author wanted to add some more surprising (but still really affected by circadian rhythms) stuff, to make the description more memorable and interesting, even to those that knew the "hungry" and "sleepy" part.
That was the best written part of the description, and was written with a clear intention.
The author wanted to add some more surprising (but still really affected by circadian rhythms) stuff, to make the description more memorable and interesting, even to those that knew the "hungry" and "sleepy" part.
For example: I don't consider myself an asthmatic. Does this sentence imply that I nonetheless may experience asthma-like symptoms in the afternoon as a component of my circadian rhythms? Or does it mean that those who already suffer from asthma are more likely to have attacks in the afternoon? For the fever part, I haven't noticed such a pattern for myself. Does it mean that fevers are more likely to occur in the afternoon, or does it mean that a normal human's daily temperature pattern resembles a fever in the afternoon?
>Or does it mean that those who already suffer from asthma are more likely to have attacks in the afternoon?
The latter: https://hms.harvard.edu/news/circadian-rhythm-asthma
>For the fever part, I haven't noticed such a pattern for myself. Does it mean that fevers are more likely to occur in the afternoon, or does it mean that a normal human's daily temperature pattern resembles a fever in the afternoon?
Apparently the first: https://westjem.com/articles/fever-incidence-is-much-lower-i...
But it's also true our daily temperature pattern changes throughout the day following a circadian rhythm (though I wouldn't call it rising that it "resembles a fever").
The latter: https://hms.harvard.edu/news/circadian-rhythm-asthma
>For the fever part, I haven't noticed such a pattern for myself. Does it mean that fevers are more likely to occur in the afternoon, or does it mean that a normal human's daily temperature pattern resembles a fever in the afternoon?
Apparently the first: https://westjem.com/articles/fever-incidence-is-much-lower-i...
But it's also true our daily temperature pattern changes throughout the day following a circadian rhythm (though I wouldn't call it rising that it "resembles a fever").
You might be right, thou I don't see that sentence as being exceptionally unclear. The first remark in the OP - stating that this is about fruit flies, made me think they might not have heard about circadian rhythms and were genuinely surprised, as it portrays a certain view often shared by people who have studied little about biology.
The conjunction should be "or" not "and"; and the lack of Oxford comma really, really hurts comprehensibility. Also, including the `in the afternoon` breaks the parallel structure of each of the items in the list.
A couple options to improve:
1. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex, or, in the afternoon, have asthma attacks or a fever.
2. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex, or suffer conditions like asthma attacks or fevers.
3. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry (mealtimes), sleepy (nighttime), want sex (??? i didnt know this was a thing), or suffer asthma attacks or fevers (afternoons).
A couple options to improve:
1. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex, or, in the afternoon, have asthma attacks or a fever.
2. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex, or suffer conditions like asthma attacks or fevers.
3. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry (mealtimes), sleepy (nighttime), want sex (??? i didnt know this was a thing), or suffer asthma attacks or fevers (afternoons).
>The conjunction should be "or" not "and"; and the lack of Oxford comma really, really hurts comprehensibility
Only for people unable to understand a sentence in context.
In general, the Oxford comma, or it's lack thereof, rarely, if ever, is a problem - except for grammar geeks (and even those have debated its significance since forever).
Only for people unable to understand a sentence in context.
In general, the Oxford comma, or it's lack thereof, rarely, if ever, is a problem - except for grammar geeks (and even those have debated its significance since forever).
There is, of course, this counter example from 2018 where many people misinterpreted the headline at first reading:
https://desk.thecontentcloud.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/...
https://desk.thecontentcloud.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/...
LOL, did they?
I found it difficult to understand.
Quote from my mom in social media a few weeks ago: "How does the November cactus know that it's November?" with a picture of the flowering cactus. We don't have a true Arctic night at these latitudes, but thanks to the mountains it's close.
> For fruit flies.
In the article it reads:
> Question. During your Nobel Prize acceptance speech, you mentioned that 50% of our genes were regulated by circadian rhythms, but in your talk you said that it is at least 70%?
> Answer. I have updated the figure due to new research done over the past six years. The 50% figure came from research in rodents, but in 2019 there was a large study done on baboons, the first in primates, and [the figure] went to 70%.
I took these figures to also apply to the relevance of the title, which is a quote from the article?
In the article it reads:
> Question. During your Nobel Prize acceptance speech, you mentioned that 50% of our genes were regulated by circadian rhythms, but in your talk you said that it is at least 70%?
> Answer. I have updated the figure due to new research done over the past six years. The 50% figure came from research in rodents, but in 2019 there was a large study done on baboons, the first in primates, and [the figure] went to 70%.
I took these figures to also apply to the relevance of the title, which is a quote from the article?
Yes, what "what"?
That's how circadian rhythms work, and all of the above are true. The author just picked some more unusual/funny/jarring examples after the staples "hungy and sleepy" to drive his point and give some fun to the article.
That's how circadian rhythms work, and all of the above are true. The author just picked some more unusual/funny/jarring examples after the staples "hungy and sleepy" to drive his point and give some fun to the article.
I don't know about asthma attacks, but body temperature is linked to the circadian rhythm (your body temperature is lower during the night). Fevers being influenced by it sounds plausible.
Adding this to my collection of reasons why remote work is better. My home office has direct sunlight from 10:00-16:00 every day of the year. I've never been to a commercial office that comes close.
You mean why work from home is better _for you_. Can't imagine most people have uninterrupted access to sunlight throughout the day. If we're using personal experiences, I certainly have never lived in a house or apartment where any of the rooms had that luxury.
I've never lived in a house or flat where the rooms didn't have a window. I wonder if that's a regulation here (France), that wouldn't surprise me. Also, the labor law mandates windows and as much natural light as possible in offices.
Eh -- most home offices tend to end up in bedrooms, which in the US are obligated to have a window that a person could fit through (or to have some other secondary exit aside from a door).
One problem is where the window faces. A north-facing window, or a window facing into a hillside or into a courtyard, does not allow sufficient sunlight. In London, my flat is in a Victorian terraced house, and the bedroom I'd use as a home office has a window which only has views of the house next door, and very little natural light. (That said, probably still more natural light than I got in my office, where I'm essentially in a corridor.)
One problem is where the window faces. A north-facing window, or a window facing into a hillside or into a courtyard, does not allow sufficient sunlight. In London, my flat is in a Victorian terraced house, and the bedroom I'd use as a home office has a window which only has views of the house next door, and very little natural light. (That said, probably still more natural light than I got in my office, where I'm essentially in a corridor.)
That might be a code where you live, but either it isn't universal or older places are exempt. My first apartment - which still rents out, decades later, had a small windowless bedroom with only a door for an exit. The nearest window was blocked by the kitchen sink.
Older places are not exempt. It’s probably a matter of lack of enforcement. People die in those places, man: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-old-port-fi...
How much use is a window if you live near a north-facing hillside in higher latitudes, inside arctic circle, etc...
which is why the _option_ of working in the office is the best :)
> MY collection of reasons
Faster for me to get outside and walk while working from home than the office.
Absolutely. I've been working flex hours for 12 years, and from home for 6 years, and I live in northern europe.
So every winter I actually take a long 2 hour walk during lunch to get some sun. Then I work later once the sun has set.
This should be the standard for all office workers in northern latitudes. But we're so stuck in our ways that we use the same work schedule all year even though the weather is clearly different.
So every winter I actually take a long 2 hour walk during lunch to get some sun. Then I work later once the sun has set.
This should be the standard for all office workers in northern latitudes. But we're so stuck in our ways that we use the same work schedule all year even though the weather is clearly different.
Some people only get sunlight from stepping out of their tiny homes or basement offices to go work at the office.
A large fraction of UV radiation is blocked even by single pane glass.
If the 'health' benefit or bio signal for this effect, requires UV radiation then there is very little that can substitute being outside for 1 or 2 hours a day depending on the season.
If the 'health' benefit or bio signal for this effect, requires UV radiation then there is very little that can substitute being outside for 1 or 2 hours a day depending on the season.
You don't need 100% UVI 11 damage 1-2hr a day. That large fraction removed is functioning well for him and preventing him from sunburn.
If we are talking about humans and the hormones associated with the 24-hour sleep/wake cycle, they are largely influenced by blue light which is in the visible spectrum. It's part of why screens without orange-shifting software will tend to keep you wide awake at night.
Interestingly, red wave (IR) light appears to influence cortisol levels but not melatonin. [1] IR also makes it through windows as any cat can attest.
Getting outside for an hour or two as often as possible, regardless of the season, is probably a good idea, but it doesn't appear to be strictly necessary for modulating circadian rhythms.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905913/
Interestingly, red wave (IR) light appears to influence cortisol levels but not melatonin. [1] IR also makes it through windows as any cat can attest.
Getting outside for an hour or two as often as possible, regardless of the season, is probably a good idea, but it doesn't appear to be strictly necessary for modulating circadian rhythms.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905913/
I used to work in an office block. I had a corner desk on the southwest of the building overlooking a park, with floor to ceiling glass.
It was miserable. The direct light was blinding during the summer,and during the winter the sun didn't clear the top of the window so I got direct light straight at either me or my screens. I tried every orientation.
COVID solved that problem but the next step was blackout blinds, which defeats the purpose a little
It was miserable. The direct light was blinding during the summer,and during the winter the sun didn't clear the top of the window so I got direct light straight at either me or my screens. I tried every orientation.
COVID solved that problem but the next step was blackout blinds, which defeats the purpose a little
I never heard this before: "Plants produce toxins to avoid being eaten, such as psoralen, which is abundant in celery. Snacking at night introduces toxins that, at that hour, our repair systems are not ready to eliminate. There is also speculation that the major epidemic of epithelial cancers, such as colon cancer, in the U.S. is because of this."
These "toxin" phytochemicals are often very healthy for humans in the levels found in typical foods and weird keto/carnivore diet nuts try to overstate their negative effects and minimize the positive ones. For example psoralen has "antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects" [1].
[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.5715...
[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.5715...
All vegetables we eat have toxins in them and it's precisely these toxins that benefit most of us when eaten periodically. Eaten daily, vegetable meals are probably unhealthy, just as eating meat daily is probably unhealthy. Mediterranean peoples figured this out a long time ago and expressed these findings in religious rituals and texts, with designated feasting and fasting periods, where a feast means lots of meat and cheese and wine, while a fast means humble meals consisting of bread and vegetables and water.
I'd imagine Northern Europeans would benefit from a similar arrangement, though they're likely better adapted to a different periodicity of feasting and fasting, given the climate and the longer periods where fresh food is unavailable.
I'd imagine Northern Europeans would benefit from a similar arrangement, though they're likely better adapted to a different periodicity of feasting and fasting, given the climate and the longer periods where fresh food is unavailable.
of course - gotta get fasting into this fad diet thread
A several-thousand year-old diet is not a fad. This is the ancient expression of fasting, not a modern brand like intermittent fasting.
These same ancient diet experts did things like bloodletting. The ancients aren’t always rational.
Bloodletting is a valid medical procedure for hemochromatosis which presently affects around 1 in 200 of those with European ancestry. It's very possible the incidence rate was greater in the past when populations were more locally homogeneous.
It's exceptionally lazy and unimaginative to dismiss out of hand a procedure practiced globally for thousands of years.
It's exceptionally lazy and unimaginative to dismiss out of hand a procedure practiced globally for thousands of years.
What about divination? Water wishing? Human sacrifice? All practice for a long time to no effect. People are highly superstitious and rarely logical.
calling it "ancient" and putting it in italics doesn't change the reality
Ancient is what it is and fad is what it is not. That's the reality.
There’s a major epidemic of a specific kind of cancer, specifically in the US, because of this - as in, other countries don’t eat celery? Or don’t eat food later at night before sleeping?
I didn’t know either! On research, it appears to be highly toxic to DNA.
Stuff the food industry doesn't want us to know.
I have eliminated all plant-based calories from my diet and it is just incredible how much better it makes you feel.
Food science is crazy and unreliable (difficult to perform relevant research, many confounding factors, often sponsored by groups with questionable motives, etc). But food anecdata seems just as crazy.
Do you eat fibre? Or do you shit literal bricks?
Do you eat fibre? Or do you shit literal bricks?
Doesn't the absence of fibre lead to the opposite: a pleasant stream out the ass?
Nnnno; lack of fiber leads to chronic constipation.
There was a period in my life where I experienced this firsthand. Do not recommend.
There was a period in my life where I experienced this firsthand. Do not recommend.
Oh my god, I laughed so hard. Thank you.
This is correct. The volume of your poop decrease by 80% and bowel movements become much easier.
I eat no fiber. If you would just try this diet for yourself then you would realize, just like tens of thousands of other people have, that it makes your bowel movements much smaller and much easier. Literally everyone who tries this diet notices this effect. You spend 80% less time in the bathroom.
What makes you think that smaller stools are somehow better? Smooth, bulky stools with a decent amount of fibre and moisture are ideal. Makes for easier travel, easier passing, and little (or no) wiping.
I'm not interested in spending 80% less time on the toilet (going from less than a minute to 10 seconds just seems like a pointless optimization). I'm also not too interested in the purported anecdotal experience of "tens of thousands" of other people. This diet seems like a terrible idea, both from a bowel health point of view, a climate point of view, and quite frankly a taste point of view.
Not eating vegetables/fibre seems like a miserable existence.
I'm not interested in spending 80% less time on the toilet (going from less than a minute to 10 seconds just seems like a pointless optimization). I'm also not too interested in the purported anecdotal experience of "tens of thousands" of other people. This diet seems like a terrible idea, both from a bowel health point of view, a climate point of view, and quite frankly a taste point of view.
Not eating vegetables/fibre seems like a miserable existence.
You think more crap is better. I think less crap is better. I rest my case.
[deleted]
I know two people that went this "all-meat" way for whatever reasons - one definitely damaged their stomach and GI tract in a serious way.
The problem is meat heavy diets then have increase in cardiovascular health problems.
What to do ? Eliminate plants and meat? Just eat oreos?
What to do ? Eliminate plants and meat? Just eat oreos?
Oreos are vegan -- they would count as plant-based calories in my system. I don't eat any calories that are not animal-based. That includes fruit, nuts, vegetable oils, etc, along with standard vegetables.
No, people who follow a meat-heavy diet simply have higher cholesterol, not an increase in cardiovascular health problems.
higher LDL cholesterol is causative of ASCVD[1] so no, that's not the case. Stop spreading dangerous, dogmatic, unsubstantiated claims.
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoqlTVCWIAI81XY?format=jpg&name=...
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoqlTVCWIAI81XY?format=jpg&name=...
Perhaps don't focus on cholesterol as the only indicator.
Because you have high cholesterol but have not yet died, does not mean it is safe.
There are countless studies that show meat based diets impact cardo health. That doesn't mean sugar doesn't also. Or if meat good, then carbs bad, or carbs good, meat bad.
It isn't all binary. Generally if you are throwing back a rack of ribs everyday to be 'low carb', then things aren't going to end well for you.
Because you have high cholesterol but have not yet died, does not mean it is safe.
There are countless studies that show meat based diets impact cardo health. That doesn't mean sugar doesn't also. Or if meat good, then carbs bad, or carbs good, meat bad.
It isn't all binary. Generally if you are throwing back a rack of ribs everyday to be 'low carb', then things aren't going to end well for you.
Higher cholesterol is associated with lower all cause mortality
man. i'd like to see what study you pulled that from. that is pretty much categorically un-true.
<EDIT>
I think I see. This claim was so out there I had to look it up. There is actually a 'U' curve. So very low and very high cholestoral is risk.
But think this goes back to my point. Health isn't about 'cholesterol' because there is good and bad and the relationship to cardo health isn't clear. You can have high 'good' cholesterol.
But, that doesn't mean you can eat ribs everyday. There are other factors.
<EDIT>
I think I see. This claim was so out there I had to look it up. There is actually a 'U' curve. So very low and very high cholestoral is risk.
But think this goes back to my point. Health isn't about 'cholesterol' because there is good and bad and the relationship to cardo health isn't clear. You can have high 'good' cholesterol.
But, that doesn't mean you can eat ribs everyday. There are other factors.
Been doing it myself. 12 years and counting...
What's that like? What do you eat?
I eat eggs, bacon, beef, and salmon. More than half my calories, maybe more than 75%, come from beef.
One thing you notice is that because there is no fiber or sugar (or carbs of any kind) in the diet, you end up basically never farting -- and the volume of your poop decreases by something like 80%.
You also hold a lot less water weight, your tolerance for alcohol decreases dramatically (although if you were strict about the diet you wouldn't be consuming alcohol anyway), you seem to have much less nasal congestion, and heartburn completely disappears. And your skin feels better.
I've looked into it, and this diet is nutritionally complete -- it is not lacking in any vitamins or minerals. Fresh meat even contains some vitamin C. You can eat some sardines from time to time for extra calcium.
On the whole I can't recommend this diet enough -- you end up in phenomenal shape.
One thing you notice is that because there is no fiber or sugar (or carbs of any kind) in the diet, you end up basically never farting -- and the volume of your poop decreases by something like 80%.
You also hold a lot less water weight, your tolerance for alcohol decreases dramatically (although if you were strict about the diet you wouldn't be consuming alcohol anyway), you seem to have much less nasal congestion, and heartburn completely disappears. And your skin feels better.
I've looked into it, and this diet is nutritionally complete -- it is not lacking in any vitamins or minerals. Fresh meat even contains some vitamin C. You can eat some sardines from time to time for extra calcium.
On the whole I can't recommend this diet enough -- you end up in phenomenal shape.
This can't be healthy, can it? Plants give trace minerals, vitamins necessary for life. Not to mention the high-cholesterol and high-blood pressure cauding diseases of the heart by eating a meat-only diet. It's good to cut down on carbs but this seems extreme.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/carnivore-diet#downside...
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/carnivore-diet#downside...
Healthy for who? I have Inuit heritage (Sami) the Inuit pretty much 80 vegetables except for seaweeds. Our genetics have changed because of this diet and we’ve adapted to it to become our healthy diet.
It’s frustrating to me that there is zero talk about genetics when it comes to diet and specifically when it comes to keto because those of us who are carry genetic polymorphisms in our CPT1A gene that makes it harder for us to go into ketosis. Therefore, we do better on a higher meat diet.
It’s frustrating to me that there is zero talk about genetics when it comes to diet and specifically when it comes to keto because those of us who are carry genetic polymorphisms in our CPT1A gene that makes it harder for us to go into ketosis. Therefore, we do better on a higher meat diet.
The Inuit are distinct from the Sami. Different ethnicity, different language group and different region.
There's a lot of false information out there. Many people on low carb find their cholesterol levels improve and blood pressure lower. Also organ meats are far more nutrient dense than plants and not only that they are more bio-available.
I like the flavor of plants, so I don't do carnivore myself. But you seem to be a few decades behind on the research.
I like the flavor of plants, so I don't do carnivore myself. But you seem to be a few decades behind on the research.
It doesn't seem healthy if you are accustomed to the standard American diet.
One overlooked factor is bioavailability of nutrients, not just how much there are in food. Lots of plants are high in X, but it's not very bioavailable, but nutrients in meat tend to be highly.
One overlooked factor is bioavailability of nutrients, not just how much there are in food. Lots of plants are high in X, but it's not very bioavailable, but nutrients in meat tend to be highly.
> It doesn't seem healthy if you are accustomed to the standard American diet.
This is such a low bar that it's not really saying much at all. There are very real reasons why this kind of diet is almost certainly not healthy long term - risk of CVD being the main one.
> One overlooked factor is bioavailability of nutrients
This is not a significant factor that someone should be basing a diet on. Bioavailability is influenced by many factors and the vast majority of people aren't eating enough nutrient-rich foods, period. Optimizing based on bioavailability misses the forest for the trees.
This is such a low bar that it's not really saying much at all. There are very real reasons why this kind of diet is almost certainly not healthy long term - risk of CVD being the main one.
> One overlooked factor is bioavailability of nutrients
This is not a significant factor that someone should be basing a diet on. Bioavailability is influenced by many factors and the vast majority of people aren't eating enough nutrient-rich foods, period. Optimizing based on bioavailability misses the forest for the trees.
"This is not a significant factor that someone should be basing a diet on."
Yeah it is, if you aren't eating meat and aren't getting the required nutrients, despite eating foods rich in them, but aren't bioavailable leading to deficiency.
Claiming the efficiency of a fuel (food) isn't important is pretty silly.
Yeah it is, if you aren't eating meat and aren't getting the required nutrients, despite eating foods rich in them, but aren't bioavailable leading to deficiency.
Claiming the efficiency of a fuel (food) isn't important is pretty silly.
> if you aren't eating meat and aren't getting the required nutrients, despite eating foods rich in them, but aren't bioavailable leading to deficiency.
How many people do you think have this problem? Logically, it doesn't even really make sense: you would have to somehow be eating enough of a food that would, if "optimally bioavailable" (as in the best case real world scenario), give you enough of that nutrient but you are eating too little of it to overcome the lack of bioavailability and so little to result in deficiency (but again, still enough that deficiency would not happen with "optimal bioavailability"). What nutrient do you think has this issue and what is your evidence?
Again, far and away the biggest issue is people not eating enough healthy food period. Anyone who cares enough to eat sufficient healthy food (with little consideration for bioavailability) would be the kind of person who's diet would be overcoming any bioavailability issues anyways. Essentially the only people I see who nitpick bioavailability are those trying to convince others that their diet is the best one.
How many people do you think have this problem? Logically, it doesn't even really make sense: you would have to somehow be eating enough of a food that would, if "optimally bioavailable" (as in the best case real world scenario), give you enough of that nutrient but you are eating too little of it to overcome the lack of bioavailability and so little to result in deficiency (but again, still enough that deficiency would not happen with "optimal bioavailability"). What nutrient do you think has this issue and what is your evidence?
Again, far and away the biggest issue is people not eating enough healthy food period. Anyone who cares enough to eat sufficient healthy food (with little consideration for bioavailability) would be the kind of person who's diet would be overcoming any bioavailability issues anyways. Essentially the only people I see who nitpick bioavailability are those trying to convince others that their diet is the best one.
You’re begging the question. What is healthy food? In my view plant-based foods are not healthy. Red meat is healthy.
> In my view plant-based foods are not healthy. Red meat is healthy.
Luckily we don't have to depend on our "views". We have data to work through differing perspectives and there is no good data to support your conclusions (and much to the contrary)
Luckily we don't have to depend on our "views". We have data to work through differing perspectives and there is no good data to support your conclusions (and much to the contrary)
It doesn’t seem healthy from basically every diet across the world. The amount of cultures, in history, that consumed only meat is incredibly tiny.
Ignoring that, just the cost alone will be extreme. Oh it’s fine for you, you’re probably consuming garbage meat. Oh you only buy “grass fed” you’re probably buying grass pellet fed meat that has been shown to not have the nutritional diversity of actual grass fed meat.
How is, eat a balanced diet, mostly plants become so controversial.
Ignoring that, just the cost alone will be extreme. Oh it’s fine for you, you’re probably consuming garbage meat. Oh you only buy “grass fed” you’re probably buying grass pellet fed meat that has been shown to not have the nutritional diversity of actual grass fed meat.
How is, eat a balanced diet, mostly plants become so controversial.
It became controversial because Big Food co-opted "balanced diet" in the mid 20th century to demonize animal fat and lionize agricultural fat and sugar. All the extreme diets you see are a reaction to that. There is absolutely nothing wrong on a dietary level with the majority of "traditional" diets--whether that is the fish, miso, and rice of Japan or the English meat and two veg. The problems come when you get to introduce a million cheap, tasty calories in the form of added fats and sugars.
Prior to agriculture human beings got the vast vast majority of their calories from meat. We followed a carnivore diet as a species for about 200,000 years until basically yesterday.
This isn’t true. When you look at modern hunter gatherers who don’t practice agriculture today, the bulk of the calories still come from plants they forage rather than meat.
That's because we hunted all the megafauna to extinction during the Pleistocene. Modern hunter gatherers live in the modern world.
The megafauna extinction was in the Americas. Human coexist with megafauna in Africa: elephant, giraffe, hippo, rhino.
Megafauna don't make much of diet of African hunter-gatherers cause they are a lot of work to hunt. They hunt smaller game. Gathering is much easier and safer.
Megafauna don't make much of diet of African hunter-gatherers cause they are a lot of work to hunt. They hunt smaller game. Gathering is much easier and safer.
Elephants are easy to hunt — they turn toward you and easily fall into disguised holes. They’re now protected by governments, however.
[deleted]
On the other hand, global warming (methane emissions from beef), water crisis (water to grow feed, instead of water to grow food), and wanton animal cruelty (most meat and eggs are industrially farmed and ethically dubious).
It's a diet with lots of externalities, which really shouldn't scale up - Atkins and Paleo were disasters, really. (And it's worth reading about the long term research on the Atkins diet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_diet )
Worth considering whether you can get similar effects with, say, 50% of the calories coming from plants. It sounds like you're mainly after carb- or gluten-free, which is quite doable without resorting to an all meat diet.
It's a diet with lots of externalities, which really shouldn't scale up - Atkins and Paleo were disasters, really. (And it's worth reading about the long term research on the Atkins diet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_diet )
Worth considering whether you can get similar effects with, say, 50% of the calories coming from plants. It sounds like you're mainly after carb- or gluten-free, which is quite doable without resorting to an all meat diet.
Meh beef emissions are 3% of the emissions in the U.S. That and they could even be far lower with food additives. Globally it's higher but that is because of poor farming practices and very loose/negative regulation.
I did keto for 8 years and it was fantastic. I am no longer on it for other reasons that have nothing to do with the diet itself.
I did keto for 8 years and it was fantastic. I am no longer on it for other reasons that have nothing to do with the diet itself.
you sound no different than every other diet of the month fanatic - overselling the benefits while downplaying any downsides
That's mainly because any dramatic change feels like a change and they haven't seen the downsides yet. Some downsides take decades to develop with some diets.
And the argument of "now I feel so much better" I have heard it with absolutely every kind of diets. Vegetarians now eating meat. Meat eaters now vegetarians. Paleo. Gluten-free. Crude/Raw...
And the argument of "now I feel so much better" I have heard it with absolutely every kind of diets. Vegetarians now eating meat. Meat eaters now vegetarians. Paleo. Gluten-free. Crude/Raw...
Atkins, low carb, paleo, keto, carnivore -- diet of the month. Sure but they are very close to the same thing and these have been rolling along for decades. Intermittent fasting and some new drugs are the only things in recent years that seem novel imo.
this is ill-advised and often actually dangerous over time - source: witness to similar approach and after several years an adult damaged their stomach and GI tract (at least)
It's amazing that, as mentioned in the interview, a question as apparently simple as "What is sleep for?" doesn't have a definitive answer in 2023.
Don’t we? I could be wrong but my understanding is that the glymphatic system works very well during sleep. Basically excretory process of the central nervous system
No, we don't have a definitive answer. We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep. But a definitive answer? There isn't one (yet). Here is the most likely theory according to Wikipedia:
>The essential function of sleep may be its restorative effect on the brain: "Sleep is of the brain, by the brain and for the brain."[95] This theory is strengthened by the fact that sleep is observed to be a necessary behavior across most of the animal kingdom, including some of the least evolved animals which have no need for other functions of sleep, such as memory consolidation or dreaming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep
>The essential function of sleep may be its restorative effect on the brain: "Sleep is of the brain, by the brain and for the brain."[95] This theory is strengthened by the fact that sleep is observed to be a necessary behavior across most of the animal kingdom, including some of the least evolved animals which have no need for other functions of sleep, such as memory consolidation or dreaming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep
>We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make. There's not purpose in a volitional sense in evolution, only effects. We sleep because necessary functions occur when we do and problems happen when we don't.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make. There's not purpose in a volitional sense in evolution, only effects. We sleep because necessary functions occur when we do and problems happen when we don't.
24 hour cycles are even observed in bacteria and archaea as well as the individual cells in our bodies. If I am understanding correctly, even in pure darkness bacteria will respond to 24-hour cycles of temperature change. Considering this, combined with the critical role of the microbiome in human health and the fact that our bodies tend to get 1-2 degrees cooler when we sleep, it seems our sleep/wake cycle may go even go beyond the brain.
I believe you're trying to assign a design intent behind sleep. Nature doesn't need this. We sleep because it works better than not sleeping, and that's all there is to it.
I thought the question was more along the lines of, "why do these things that happen during sleep require us to be asleep and not just happen all the time?"
Also isnt sleep useful to conserve energy when it is dark?
Humans dont do much activity at night (hard to see so dangerous).
What is being awake for? When we sleep and dream we connect with some kind of other dimension, incredible places. Animals seem to do as well. Maybe being awake just has the purpose of nourishing the body so that we can sleep, with sleep and dreaming being the meaning of life?
Or it is to conserve energy during the time that we are on the dark side of this spinning globe, since it is difficult to see in the dark.
Or it is to conserve energy during the time that we are on the dark side of this spinning globe, since it is difficult to see in the dark.
There's a lot of unknowns in the way we work. As someone who loves diving deeply into systems, it's one of the reasons biology terrifies me.
We have good hints at the reasons : to repair cellular damage caused by reactive oxygen species. Clues pointing in this direction: animals without sleep survive with antixoydants and melatonine evolved as one.
[deleted]
I'm not a native English speaker yet I have objections with the use of "adapted" in this sentence
The Earth had been spinning on its axis for a billion years when the first living beings appeared. Since then, we have adapted to alternate between light and darkness.
The word "adaptation" has a few specific meanings in the field of biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
Ah that makes sense then! So in this context it is used in the same sense as evolve. Thanks that not only makes sense but lead me to search with both terms and get this
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/adaptation...
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/adaptation...
Evolutionary adaptation, or simply adaptation...LUCA[1] almost certainly didn't care about day/night cycles, so it seems accurate. And even if it had, the ways in which a modern mammal with a central nervous system cares are new changes brought on by the day-night cycle. An organism if an organism is changing in ways that are caused by the a specific environment, it's still adapting to the environment even if the environment isn't continuing to change.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor
Isn't that change/evolution though ? If the environment didn't change - talking about the very specific attribute of earth axes rotation - is it correct to use "adapt" ?
"Adapt" is perfectly valid here. After all, the beings have changed (evolved). It doesn't matter whether the environment has. Which is also the case - not just the seasons but also huge climate changes and the mass extinctions.
I think adapt is perfectly fine, but "since then" really throws a wrench in the sentence. Why not, "therefore" instead?
that is splitting hairs.
State A: No Earth
State B: Earth.
Thus, we adapted to Earth.
State A: No Earth
State B: Earth.
Thus, we adapted to Earth.
that is totally wrong, the premise here - as I quote - is that the Earth was already there and then the first leaving things appeared
Sorry. Was being bit sarcastic. Since every single day is a new state, State A and B are different, and we are adapting.
Organisms are continually adapting. So this question seemed to be calling into question the findings because the earth always rotated and so always had a night and day, so State A and B are identical, thus we didn't adapt.
Organisms are continually adapting. So this question seemed to be calling into question the findings because the earth always rotated and so always had a night and day, so State A and B are identical, thus we didn't adapt.
If you listen to enough Huberman Labs podcasts you'll hear him talk about the importance of getting some direct sunlight in the morning on a daily basis. Here's one example: https://youtu.be/UF0nqolsNZc
Also in the anecdotes folder, saw a sleep specialist with my (young adult) child and he stressed the importance of getting daily sunlight exposure.
Also in the anecdotes folder, saw a sleep specialist with my (young adult) child and he stressed the importance of getting daily sunlight exposure.
Ah yes the "People living in California forgetting the rest of the work isn't like California" phenomenon - I would love to get sunlight every day but living in the UK that just isn't viable. Sunlight into my eyeballs within 15 minutes of waking up? Forget about it between October and March.
Further evidence to me that humans weren't supposed to stray far from the equator and that I was born in the wrong climate (yes I am working on moving south)
Further evidence to me that humans weren't supposed to stray far from the equator and that I was born in the wrong climate (yes I am working on moving south)
I live in Norway. My sunrises are a little after 9:30. IN a couple weeks, it'll be a half an hour later. Sunset is before 3 in the afternoon. If you wake up late enough and get lucky enough not to have cloud cover, you can get some weak sunlight that won't be enough to give vitamin D even if you could spend enough time outside without long sleeves on.
Realistically, folks aren't getting sun in the morning.
I'm not looking to move south, though. I moved up here for marriage and the weather has just been a nice benefit.
Realistically, folks aren't getting sun in the morning.
I'm not looking to move south, though. I moved up here for marriage and the weather has just been a nice benefit.
> Sunlight into my eyeballs within 15 minutes of waking up? Forget about it between October and March.
Think outside the box, wake up at noon.
Think outside the box, wake up at noon.
I was thinking, "This is a strange thing to get pissy about," but then realised you're in the middle of winter, so probably not in a great mood.
Living in the southern hemisphere it's hot here at the moment and were keeping an eye on the bushfire reports.
Living in the southern hemisphere it's hot here at the moment and were keeping an eye on the bushfire reports.
And the flood reports!
(I'm on the combination bushfire and flood website.)
(I'm on the combination bushfire and flood website.)
Whenever people talk about the benefits of direct sunlight, those wavelengths make it through clouds (just to a lesser degree). Whereas 5-10 minutes morning exposure is plenty without clouds, it is recommended to increase to 15-20 minutes during cloud cover. In both cases, face towards (but don't look directly at) the sun for the best effect.
This got to me too. I moved from NY to Paris and the fact that the days are so short in winter doesn't make up for the fact that they are quite long in the summer. I wake up at 6 and there is no sunlight until 8 these days. Even moving to the south of France wouldn't help much.
this may be useful:
https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens
the sun isn't magic, we now have the tech
Thanks, I have a SAD lamp that I use but it's not the same as real actual sun you know? I appreciate the link though :-)
Just make sure you're getting enough lux, commercial SAD lamps are so dark it's borderline fraudulent. You need a LOT of light.
OT but does anyone have a good recommendation for a lumen lamp to simulate sunlight?
Philips has had a series of lights to stimulate the sun during the short day season, that they've been selling in Norway, at least since the nineties. At the moment they've branded them energy up. They are the only brand I've seen selling something like it. But there might be others.
there are lots of options online. just search for "happy light" or ironically their proper name, "SAD light"
to regulate circadian rhythm you want something that hits melanopsin, which is optimally excited at 484 nm. most LEDs have a gap in the spectrum there. like another commenter mentioned, waveform has some good products with engineered phosphors. they sell some reels of LED and heat sink channels which I used to make my SAD lamp. shitty ikea, costs a little more and you have to put it together yourself. still cheaper than off the shelf SAD lamps though
mind sharing a bit more of your process on how I could make one?
buy the reels and channels waveform sells, solder them together and connect a power supply.
I've had reasonable luck with full spectrum LED grow lights (quantum board). Though you absolutely 100% need a diffuser. Discovered their efficacy by accident after one winter I shared an office with my house plants.
Though looking at the research they are probably putting out enough energy in the blue spectrum to risk cataracts (so do your own safety research).
Though looking at the research they are probably putting out enough energy in the blue spectrum to risk cataracts (so do your own safety research).
I remember a blog post entry on HN of someone who turned their corner office/living room into some sunlight simulated thing with high candela bespoke bulbs. Maybe with the search at the bottom you will find it.
Waveform Lighting makes awesome full spectrum bulbs. You are welcome. ;)
There are a few other mfgs, Yuji is another great one, but the best price/performance IMO is SunLike from Seoul Semiconductor. They are in GE Sun Filled and Norb SMILE bulbs in the US.
http://www.seoulsemicon.com/en/technology/sunlike/casestudy/
http://www.seoulsemicon.com/en/technology/sunlike/casestudy/
You can't do a 'lumen' lamp. The IR rays are what help. Anecdotally it felt good to cover my hands with the old lamps, and the cfls and LED lights never "felt" good.
Be careful of eye damage. Cataracts form from certain frequencies of blue light, and IR can damage your retina.
(There was an article about some guy with an IR heater on his desk, which was partially faulty, and emitted too much IR in a certain frequency, and damaged his eyes)
(There was an article about some guy with an IR heater on his desk, which was partially faulty, and emitted too much IR in a certain frequency, and damaged his eyes)
I got a "Happy Light" for my desk that is 10k Lumens. could that be damaging my eyes?
Link to that particular product please? I'll see if I can suss out the spectral emissions. In general, with lights that bright you probably don't want to be looking directly into them anyway, and you may want to add a diffusor if it isn't built in already.
Can you link me?
https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documents/radiation-protection/....
My understanding is that typically it isn't an issue, but the hearer malfunctioned, and it was on his desk, and so he was kind of staring at it all day.
I'd take care. Don't stare into the light, for starters.
My understanding is that typically it isn't an issue, but the hearer malfunctioned, and it was on his desk, and so he was kind of staring at it all day.
I'd take care. Don't stare into the light, for starters.
Thanks for the article. Looks like he got his eyesight back so it wasn't permanent.
I’m not sure what you mean by lumen lamp, but good old incandescent bulbs radiate with a spectrum quite close to that of the setting sun.
Consumer bulbs do not typically emit UVA or UVB, so you can’t simulate the sun with just one bulb.
Is UV radiation necessary for Circadian rhythm?
No, UV radiation doesn't matter at all for this purpose. The only thing that matters is brightness of the visible spectrum, especially blues and greens. Buy the brightest white light lamp you can find, those that treat Seasonal Affective Disorder are good.
It is december. The nights are quickly growing very long. For the next few months I will travel to work before dawn and return home after sunset. And the cold will soon mean i dont go out much during the day. If i work sat/sun during a push period i might not see sun for weeks. Since my health is therefore basically f-ed, I guess I can now take up smoking. Tell all those people working on ships and submarines that they are also free to smoke. Or, perhaps we are more adaptable than we think and annual cycles of darkness are no more dangerous than any number of lifestyles factors. Id bet good money that my risk of skin cancer drops considerably in winter.
> If i work sat/sun during a push period i might not see sun for weeks.
Regardless of weather and sunlight, you should avoid this as much as possible. Due dates are almost always arbitrary, especially in software.
Regardless of weather and sunlight, you should avoid this as much as possible. Due dates are almost always arbitrary, especially in software.
I've said this a few times forcefully (as in pound sand) in my career, "nobody remembers a missed release date but they never forget broken features that cost them time".
If only I worked in software. I am in a job (military) that doesn't enjoy such casual flexibility.
Go out. Remember there’s no bad weather, only bad clothing.
Buy a SAD therapy lamp they're cheap.
My sleep schedule used to just permanently drift forward and it was super awful towards having any kind of regular lifestyle and work was borderline impossible.
Sometime about 1.5 years ago I decided to start walking in the sun for about 30 minutes a day. I have since increased that amount to around 3 hours per day every day. I am no longer able to stay up past say 3 or 4 AM, even if I wanted to ! It is impossible!
Sometime about 1.5 years ago I decided to start walking in the sun for about 30 minutes a day. I have since increased that amount to around 3 hours per day every day. I am no longer able to stay up past say 3 or 4 AM, even if I wanted to ! It is impossible!
Even when I lived 60 degrees North of the equator and it was regularly -40 for a daytime high, I always went for a walk on my lunchbreak. Usually the coldest days are the sunniest, and I always felt better for having the sun on my face.
I really noticed the days I wasn't able to - I felt horrible at the end of the day.
I live in Northern Europe and in this time of years it is not uncommon to have cloudy days with little light (you need lights on indoors) for weeks at a time. I wonder people from before artificial lighting had adaptions to lower light levels.
Not necessarily contradicting this, but even overcast days still have a high amount of sunlight outside. We don't really notice the difference to room lighting because our eyes have a very high dynamic range, but during the day (unless you live in the polar circle), the intensity of sunlight outside (and also the broadness of its spectrum) are much higher than any common indoor lighting.
Living in Scandinavia has really made me hate the kind of studies. You have stupid advise like "Get up early and get sun in your eyes first thing in the morning"... Okay so which is it, sleep til' 9:00 or get up early, in the dark? It's the same with, go to bed when it's dark, right now the sun set at 15:40.
If the suggestion is that I reduce my working hours drastically during the winter I'm all for it, but it is getting a little tiresome that supposed scientists completely ignore the fact that a pretty sizeable chunk of the worlds population lives pretty far north and have done so for thousands of years.
The research may very well be right, but it's not particularly useful if you don't address the fact billions of people live in areas where you're recommendation don't make sense.
If the suggestion is that I reduce my working hours drastically during the winter I'm all for it, but it is getting a little tiresome that supposed scientists completely ignore the fact that a pretty sizeable chunk of the worlds population lives pretty far north and have done so for thousands of years.
The research may very well be right, but it's not particularly useful if you don't address the fact billions of people live in areas where you're recommendation don't make sense.
When I was preparing for a trip south, I noticed that the southernmost city (according to itself), Ushuaia is south of 54 degrees latitude, while Copenhagen is nothing like the northernmost city yet is about 55 degrees north.
This is a way of amplifying that plenty of people live north of other people. Whole countries.
This is a way of amplifying that plenty of people live north of other people. Whole countries.
To the point the other siblings are making, you can get an app for your phone to measure luminosity, try it out on a cloudy day (like in the UK today)
The amount of light your eyes get on cloudy days while outdoors exceeds the brightest SAD lamps on the market.
This is definitely not as black and white as you put it.
Today, where I live (53 degrees latitude, northern hemisphere), the brightest point of the day is just about 100W/m². That converts to about 12000 lumens, but that is only at the very brightest midday hour. Before that or after that, it is only about a third of that. There are plenty of days where it doesn't even reach 100W/m².
On those days, daylight is more dim than regular lamps even at the brightest point of during the middle of the day.
Today, where I live (53 degrees latitude, northern hemisphere), the brightest point of the day is just about 100W/m². That converts to about 12000 lumens, but that is only at the very brightest midday hour. Before that or after that, it is only about a third of that. There are plenty of days where it doesn't even reach 100W/m².
On those days, daylight is more dim than regular lamps even at the brightest point of during the middle of the day.
my personal experience agrees.
Same. Sample of 1 anecdata reporting for duty: can confirm 100%.
I’ve always thought night jobs should have limitations on how long an individual can consecutively work an overnight shift to limit the toll it takes on mental and physical health.
> mental and physical health.
It doesn't necessary.
You could rephrase the title from
> Lack of sunlight during the day is worse than [..]
to
> Lack of sunlight during the day has a larger effect on your bio rhythms then [..]
but that effect isn't per-se bad
it's bad if you life is out of sync with your bio rhythms to a point where it can have sever effects on you mental and physical health
also additionally the way various factors can affect (mainly but not exclusively) shift our bio rhythms there is also the fact that people have various "dispositions" (not the right scientific term), dispositions which also change with age and which seem to have naturally evolved to improve the survival chances of human by making sure that in a pack of human (\j) there is always someone "fit" to spot danger/react fast/etc.
the reason I'm pointing that "dispositions" out is because they can have a major affect on how likely (and more important how much) the bio rhythms of a person and their life with night shifts are out of sync
as far as someone like me who doesn't know much about sleep science can tall the most harmful think is the switch between night and day shift making your bio rhythms fall completely out of sink (leading to fun thinks like potentially constantly increasing exhaustion every day) and/or the bio rhythms not adapting to night shifts
worse as far as I can tell from personal experience there can be a big mismatch between what your bio rhythms are and what your "habits of sleep/work" are, especially if other factors like huge external stress come into play :\
Anyway examples of people living healthy lives with unusual bio rhythms (longer, shorter, shifted) are quite many.
It doesn't necessary.
You could rephrase the title from
> Lack of sunlight during the day is worse than [..]
to
> Lack of sunlight during the day has a larger effect on your bio rhythms then [..]
but that effect isn't per-se bad
it's bad if you life is out of sync with your bio rhythms to a point where it can have sever effects on you mental and physical health
also additionally the way various factors can affect (mainly but not exclusively) shift our bio rhythms there is also the fact that people have various "dispositions" (not the right scientific term), dispositions which also change with age and which seem to have naturally evolved to improve the survival chances of human by making sure that in a pack of human (\j) there is always someone "fit" to spot danger/react fast/etc.
the reason I'm pointing that "dispositions" out is because they can have a major affect on how likely (and more important how much) the bio rhythms of a person and their life with night shifts are out of sync
as far as someone like me who doesn't know much about sleep science can tall the most harmful think is the switch between night and day shift making your bio rhythms fall completely out of sink (leading to fun thinks like potentially constantly increasing exhaustion every day) and/or the bio rhythms not adapting to night shifts
worse as far as I can tell from personal experience there can be a big mismatch between what your bio rhythms are and what your "habits of sleep/work" are, especially if other factors like huge external stress come into play :\
Anyway examples of people living healthy lives with unusual bio rhythms (longer, shorter, shifted) are quite many.
My dad preferred to work the night shift because it was less stressful at his workplace. He tried day shift a couple of times, but always ended up going back to nights by choice. For that reason, I have trouble agreeing with your suggestion, but I understand that you mean well.
What is your solution, then?
Places that limit overnight shifts tend to have variable shifts - folks will work all three shifts, have one night a week, and so on. This definitely takes a toll on mental and physical health - just in a different way. At least with regular overnight shifts, you can get into some sort of rhythm with regular sleep and eating times.
The other solutions mean things like paying folks more so they can work fewer days (make a full time salary in 3-4 days a week), but few places are going to do that and taxpayers are going to foot some of that bill - some pretty vital places have staff at night. 911 operators, police and fire services, snow plowing, nursing homes and hospitals tend to need around the clock staffing.
Places that limit overnight shifts tend to have variable shifts - folks will work all three shifts, have one night a week, and so on. This definitely takes a toll on mental and physical health - just in a different way. At least with regular overnight shifts, you can get into some sort of rhythm with regular sleep and eating times.
The other solutions mean things like paying folks more so they can work fewer days (make a full time salary in 3-4 days a week), but few places are going to do that and taxpayers are going to foot some of that bill - some pretty vital places have staff at night. 911 operators, police and fire services, snow plowing, nursing homes and hospitals tend to need around the clock staffing.
Honestly, human work conditions continue to be primitive, even for "privileged" office jobs.
You sit all day. You have poor lighting. You breath crappy air. The screen stare is damaging to your eyes. You're exposed to lots of stress and few real cognitive breaks.
You're just supposed to ignore every basic human need and best practice and grind through it. And even be thankful for the opportunity too.
Whatever you can do to improve things, is all on you. The expectations remain the same. It's more like a personal hobby, your bodies' basic needs.
Same with "mental health" that employers supposedly care about. They would never take away any root causes, instead...here's a link to an e-course.
You sit all day. You have poor lighting. You breath crappy air. The screen stare is damaging to your eyes. You're exposed to lots of stress and few real cognitive breaks.
You're just supposed to ignore every basic human need and best practice and grind through it. And even be thankful for the opportunity too.
Whatever you can do to improve things, is all on you. The expectations remain the same. It's more like a personal hobby, your bodies' basic needs.
Same with "mental health" that employers supposedly care about. They would never take away any root causes, instead...here's a link to an e-course.
Better get rid of daylight saving time, then, so we can spend more waking hours in the dark
I mean, it's kind of obvious. One is some extra light frequencies that might or might not disturb sleep.
The other is preventing an essential function, there since evolutionary times, the disturbance of which is known to be associated with all kinds of problems, from depression to various cancers and general health.
The other is preventing an essential function, there since evolutionary times, the disturbance of which is known to be associated with all kinds of problems, from depression to various cancers and general health.
> One of the things that flies and privileged people have in common is napping and sleeping at night
Come on
Come on
I mean to some degree it's true.
Most people on HN probably have the privilege to have grown up in a somewhat semi healthy society and now have reasonable decent jobs.
But compared to people which are semi forced to do stuff like working 24h shifts frequently or living in a area with so much noise pollution (and or danger or hunger (it's really hard to sleep if you haven't eaten anything for 30h and not much before that either)) that it's hard to sleep at all. Or which have to work 3 jobs sleeping only 4 hours a night it's really quite privileged.
A privilege which _should be the norm and not having it is inhuman_.
But if we consider that there are _many millions_ of people which do not have it calling it a privilege is sadly not absurd.
Most people on HN probably have the privilege to have grown up in a somewhat semi healthy society and now have reasonable decent jobs.
But compared to people which are semi forced to do stuff like working 24h shifts frequently or living in a area with so much noise pollution (and or danger or hunger (it's really hard to sleep if you haven't eaten anything for 30h and not much before that either)) that it's hard to sleep at all. Or which have to work 3 jobs sleeping only 4 hours a night it's really quite privileged.
A privilege which _should be the norm and not having it is inhuman_.
But if we consider that there are _many millions_ of people which do not have it calling it a privilege is sadly not absurd.
I think the word privilege should be reserved for those things which inherently everyone can't have. You can imagine a world where everyone has a flying car, but you can't imagine one where everyone has a personal servant (because then the servants would also have servants, who would have servants etc.)
To be an elected representative, or a leader, is a privilege because if everyone was, no one would be. To be rich in absolute terms isn't a privilege, but to be richer than average is a privilege. Same with status, beauty, talent etc.
Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.
To be an elected representative, or a leader, is a privilege because if everyone was, no one would be. To be rich in absolute terms isn't a privilege, but to be richer than average is a privilege. Same with status, beauty, talent etc.
Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.
> Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.
We already have "Zero Sum" to describe the thing you're talking about. Privilege is a different word, which refers to "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people" (Dictionary.com)
You can try to fight to redefine the word, but recognize you're waging an uphill battle against how everyone else uses it
We already have "Zero Sum" to describe the thing you're talking about. Privilege is a different word, which refers to "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people" (Dictionary.com)
You can try to fight to redefine the word, but recognize you're waging an uphill battle against how everyone else uses it
We need different words for rights, immunities or benefits that everyone can have and rights, immunities or benefits that you necessarily have at other's expense. I have to fight uphill either way, since these two are so often conflated by activists.
But I'm not alone or the first to insist on making the distinction.
But I'm not alone or the first to insist on making the distinction.
Reject modernity. Return to fly.
Article[0] came up across a feed which was saying the same thing, and I said screw it, and got two 100W LED corn bulbs[1] that the article suggested, and boy did it make a difference. Literally came mid last week, and for the last 4 days, I've had more energy, better sleep, and felt better than I have in months, years even. Incredible difference for $60.
The corn bulbs are just like light bulbs so they fit into the same sockets (some are bigger, but get the ones that say E26). You can also get specific lamps to put them around. I also got some construction string lights[2] and hanging those on my wall. Makes it almost seem like I'm in a museum which is cool too.
My goal is to get some more lights and make my living / office area legit feel like I'm outside on a summer day. I have a lux meter coming today to be able to see and judge intensity. If it's too intense, I can turn them off like I'm going into the shade.
The importance of letting your body know when it's daytime and nighttime, which is talked about in the article, makes all parts of life better. Eat better, more energy to do things, less angry. Part of me disappointed I didn't know this before, but another part glad that I'm catching on now.
[0] https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09ZHMD5ZL [2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C5X7XLRQ