It is possible to test the chaining though, if you know your data well. If not, those edge cases in the data quality can throw things off balance very easily.
Amazon did that to a physical product my wife is selling. I was very annoyed. But it ended up being a configuration but default being `show address` state is definitely annoying.
you do you. NIR is the part of sunlight that makes you "feel" good or alive or whatever nice thing you are looking from being outside.. Ill stick with NIR is essential component for calling stream of photons as sun-like.. or not sun-like.
Well, I have a brute force strategy for pgvector working reasonably well. Individual, partial indexes. It works for all those queries with category_id=<> clauses. You only need an index for larger categories, for categories with rows below a threshold you dont need index a KNN/dot product would work.
There are more than 1000 similar papers on red and near infrared. All pointing to its impact on mitochondria. Near Infrared (NIR) penetrates few cm, leading to its mitochondrial impact in muscle cells too.
A family member of mine is involved in research into using red/NIR light to improve brain injuries outcomes. Apparently it can also irradiate passing blood which then circulates with the same mitochondrial clean up signals, so it has some secondary effects on non-penetrated areas.
I got to try a prototype LED helmet that blasts 90 watts of lensed, circumspaced NIR beams through the skull for 4 minutes. I can say that an hour later it leaves me feeling mildly buzzed. The main effect I can identify is a mild and general sense of stamina/energy. I used it before/after an all-nighter and didn't feel as impacted as I should have; analogous to how you feel the next morning after drinking at age 20 vs. age 30. All anecdotal of course.
They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
I have so many questions about both apparatuses. 90W input or irradiated? Pulse width modulated/dimmed? Lasers? LEDs? 850nm? 830nm? 810nm?
For the panel, 1800W is a LOT of power to put through 2 feet. Is it actually 1800W? What wavelengths? PWM?
I've been using a NIR belt flipped inside out on my pillow the last few weeks. It's only 6W of 850nm, but I've been feeling less dumb recently. Not sure if it's correlated, but until I settle it for sure, I'm going to keep on using it.
The prototype came with a power supply that is set at 24V, 5A and consumes 90W when running. Not sure how the control circuits work but its pretty simply operated with a 3P2T switch for 650nm/Off/850nm. Each module contains a fan cooled array of LEDs behind a plastic lens. I think it has some thermal shut off protection circuit as well.
I just dug out the spec sheet for the other device and you're right. It says "LED Power Class 1800W", but lists power consumption as 350W.
I really like it's potential to improve the right kind of symptoms when applied correctly and I'm also wary of people with bottom line incentives filling in any scientific uncertainty with miracle cures. But I agree, it's definitely worth using. It's a one time purchase with no side effects, so the worst case risk is just disappointment.
infrared, yes. Although depends on skin colour wrapping the skull. Melanin absorbs everything under the sun. It has very high absorption of UV but somewhat absorbs infrared too in this range of frequencies. Darker the color of skin, higher the melanin and higher the absorption by skin.
Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a near-infrared (NIR) light-based therapy technique and has shown therapeutic effectiveness for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including MDD. The transcranial PBM (t-PBM) technique delivers NIR light through the scalp and skull.
Near-infrared spectroscopy in the brain is made possible by the relative transparency of biological tissues (including bone) to light for infrared wavelengths ranging from 650 to 925 nm.
Penetration of light from an 820 nm gallium-aluminum-arsenium laser diode through a sample of fresh human skin. Data extrapolated from data presented in Kolari (25) and shown in the blue columns. A line of regression is shown by the black dotted line. The regression line indicates that light from a low-power laser diode can penetrate less than 2.2 mm into human skin.
This says that a 820nm laser penetrate 2.2mm into human skin. That is 0.08 inches. That is about the width of a groove on the top of your finger. How does that square with saying that it could go through skull bone that is 3.5x as thick while being more dense than tissue?
I assume you had a cut-n-paste failure with that link. I think you meant https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3..., which I assume you picked because the title. It is an interesting article, should you ever decide to read it beyond cherry picking the caption from 'Figure 2'. But TL;DR: It doesn't say what you apparently think it says. The author is questioning the therapeutic value of low power infrared light therapy, and demonstrating what is required for medical effect. He is not questioning whether or not infrared light can penetrate skin and bone, because it does. For example:
We have demonstrated that our multi-watt NIR data delivers an estimated 1.65–3.7 J/cm2 to a depth of 30 mm. As shown above, this is within the biologically meaningful fluence range (1, 2, 4, 6, 47) and is more than 100-fold greater than the fluence delivered by an LED system or by a low-power infrared light system according to the findings of the authors cited above (7, 18, 21, 37, 38, 48).
and
Patients receiving 10–20 treatments of multi-watt infrared light, each lasting approximately 20–30 min, have experienced significant, and often, dramatic improvements (47, 48). The fluence of combined 810 and 980 nm light delivered during each of these treatments was, on average, 81 J/cm2/treatment. Correcting for forehead skin, skull, and 1 cm of brain tissue, this delivered a fluence of fluence of 0.41 J/cm2 to the neurons 1 cm below the cortical surface.
NIR in the power range of 10–15 W at 810 and 980 nm can provide fluence within the range shown to be biologically beneficial at 3 cm depth. You can't ELI5 more than that.
Understanding does take work, and given your posting history of mostly low effort negative snark, I probably spent more time than I should have. But it was an interesting diversion into something I otherwise wouldn't have known.
Now, the skin of the forehead overlying a portion of the frontal lobes is approximately 2 mm thick. It is possible that tiny amounts of infrared light from lower powered emitters could penetrate the forehead skin; however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin. Nevertheless, the remainder of the scalp, over which hoods, helmets, and posteriorly placed LED pads are emitting low-power light, is an average of 5.1–5.8 mm thick.
Simply put, it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head if the light energy from that LED cannot penetrate through human skin further than 3 mm. The energy of low-power devices simply will not penetrate the thickness of the scalp overlying much of the skull.
Some have suggested that NIR energy from low-power devices penetrates deeper if longer exposure times are used. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles that scatter, absorption, and refraction play in degrading NIR energy as it passes through tissue.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue – often several cm below the surface.
Longer exposure times will simply pump more energy into the epidermis and dermis of the skin/scalp.
Longer exposure times do not yield deeper penetration. These limitations on penetration only take into consideration the skin and scalp; however, the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light, because people can't see it (and possibly no animals can). If you drop the frequency enough something will get through (a tiny percent) and if you keep calling it light then you can make the false claim that light passes through bone, when we know that isn't true because we can see bones and they aren't transparent. We could say radio waves pass though people too and therefore light goes right though people.
however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin.
Yes. The study discusses this. Its why the researchers moved to more powerful sources. To provide the results you refuse to read. Which I explicitly pointed out in my reply so you didn't have to worry about struggling with reading comprehension yourself. Which you ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.
it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head
Yes, that is what the researchers said. LEDs don't have enough power; they measured that. That's why they didn't use regular LEDs. And they measured that change. And gave you the parameters of their setup for you to check (well, not you...for people into facts and science and such). And cited the people who had similar results. And cited people who had different results. And other science things that people who actually read this stuff for comprehension appreciate. That you ignore.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue
Different...energy? Physics would like a word with you. But physics does expect you to have done your homework, so I'll let it know you won't be around any time soon. I told it to be nice, and remember not everyone has a high school level understanding of physics, and they might say silly things. Be excellent to each other and all that.
often several cm below the surface.
Yeah. How about 3cm? Like the researchers said. In their measurements. That they didn't guess at.
the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well
Yes. The researchers discuss skulls in detail. Not just people skulls...sheep skulls and mice skulls too. 3cm on people; all the way through in mice. Sheep somewhere between. And a lot about hands, but I don't figure you care about those. They wrote it down and it got published. After actually doing the science.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light
There it is! Ding ding! The audience watching at home knew this was coming.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!" a couple of exchanges back and moved on to easier targets with less annoying 'facts' and 'proof' and 'published works of science by experts' around for anyone who cared to check. I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium.
Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!"
I did mention this in my first reply, I don't know why you feel the need for this manic response.
I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium. Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
I don't understand where these insults are coming from. It doesn't seem like you're addressing that lower frequency EM that no animal can see isn't light. Saying "WTF and LOL" and trying to be patronizing doesn't confront what I posted.
You realize for most of your post you are replying to your own source right? I didn't write that, I took it from your link and put the most relevant stuff in italics. When you are quoting "Simply put" and replying: "The siren cry of ignorance everywhere." that's from your link, not me.
Radio waves do with no trouble. Blue does not at all. Everything between is on a sliding scale; there are no qualitative changes until you get to ionising radiation.
Though there’s a bit in the middle where it matches the resonant frequency of water molecules, yes.
> They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
I think the commercial model here is a tanning bed config with LED tubes. Goggles on, hop in the healing tube.
It sits right on the head with a ~1 inch foam spacer. The lens might change the fluence, which I think was a key part of the pending patent. Also 90W is the power draw for all the modules in the helmet. I can ask though what the targeted mW/area is and reply if I can get an answer.
I have a TBI which resulted in a number of chronic symptoms including decades of memory loss, although thankfully I retained my functional intelligence at least so I can keep working (although I still have many ongoing issues including atypical migraines leading to cyclic vomiting etc).
I have been exploring red light therapy using cheapo panels as well as fischer wallace devices (and have the OAK preordered via the IPO stock options), so I'm definitely trying out all the 'technologic approaches' since traditional medicine has been largely of no use (shout out to ondandestrone though, the best nausea suppresant I know of which can help fend off the migraince/vomiting episodes).
All that to say:
Is your friend interested in any more TBI test subjects? Happy to pay for the device assuming I can afford it and provide detailed notes to help with any studies; this sounds like exactly the type of thing I need to try next.
No worries if not, but figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
I mean, it is kinda quacky to treat someone with that until it's demonstrated by science. I'm open to the idea that light is an important regulator, but that effect should be easily observable if it's truly effective.
I'm no expert but my gist is that light interacts with an enzyme in the electron transport chain (cytochrome c oxidase). CCO is embedded in the inner membrane of mitochondria, and nitric oxide binds to CCO which temporarily inhibits cellular respiration as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress. Red and NIR light can photodissociate NO from CCO with the right intensity and wavelength, which restarts cellular respiration and ATP production. The release of NO into the bloodstream can secondarily trigger other chemical pathways involved in vasodilation and reactive oxygen species management.
In general, with a very few exceptions, if the body has a regulatory mechanism there's at least some reason for it, and tinkering with it without understanding it can have unpredictable downsides.
>as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress
That sounds like something I'd be very wary of manipulating without a good deal of clinical trials. Isn't oxidative stress one of like three primary hypothesized mechanisms of aging?
The body has regulatory mechanisms formed 100k to 1000k years ago, and some even older. The life was a bit different then, as was humans' mental capacity and knowledge.
This is why humans have to actively overcome and sometimes subvert various mechanisms that presume the need to conserve the energy: they hit a gym which the body doesn't like, they limit sugars and fats which the body craves, they consume caffeine, nicotine, or even cocaine to trick the body into working harder and complaining less.
Compared to that, hitting the body with some NIR radiation seems very benign. You can get a lot of that just by walking in the sun, and there are no known adverse effects of that, unlike, say the use of the chemical substances. If anything, it's a promising field of research.
The topmost comment in this comment thread starts with the fact that there are over a thousand studies on this already, no? Even if the whole effect isn't well understood, it seems like there is some science behind this.
One could argue that the research goes all the way back to Dr Frederick Cook aboard the Belgica during an Antarctic expedition I which they became trapped by the sea ice. The men suffered from multiple maladies, scurvy included, with one of the prescribed treatments being to stand nude near a blazing fire for an hour. If his notes are to be believed, the men saw some immediate changed in their overall health beyond simply getting warm. By some accounts, he became a bit of a fanatic about how much we humans need the sun, after that.
Or it could be vitamin D, or sunlight killing ticks, or fungal pathogens, or it could be the release of endorphins due to mild sun burn, or any number of other things.
I'd say it's all those things, likely in different combinations based on the circumstances. Cook's notes indicate that he may have considered it a panacea of sorts, triggering a bunch of different stuff that helped overall health, but keep in mind this was something to tune of 150 years ago, so the information he was working with may have limited the scope of his understanding. For all his otherwise infamous reputation, his work aboard the Belgica was nothing short of pioneering for the time. His life after that expedition over-shadows any positive contributions to science he made, unfortunately.
Vitamin D is not an outcome of standing by fire. It is from UV spectrum which is entirely absent from fires. It needs high temperature fire like fusion to be emitted. Totally doable by sun but not by your campfire.
i dont know what you mean by science. There are literally 1000s of research papers showing mitochondrial "horsepower" with red light on every type of tissue. Cells heal themselves as first thing when they get extra energy. Do you want your neighborhood clinic to validate before trying some light samples out?
I've looked into red light at least a handful of nights, I never can come away with a conclusion. It seems like it helps, but it also seems super likely it doesn't do much. I've added the super high intensity arrays to my cart even, before reading into various studies and anecdotes and just not being convinced.
I've used it for a while now on my knees and ankles. Seems like it works. But honestly its hard for me to tell if anything works. I even question Tylenol. All of it seems like it may work some, but its not something I feel has a very acute impact at all.
Without a controlled study, as an individual, how can I tell if my sprain got better in 6 days but would've taken 9 days otherwise???
Tylenol is a pain reliever so may help with pain. Something like ibuprofen may be a better option, speak to your doctor, as it not only helps with pain but acts as an anti-inflammatory. The important thing to note is that it's effects do not happen instantly but something like several days later so if you have a knee issue, taking it regularly as directed by doctor or manufacturers instructions and not just when your knee hurts can really speed up recovery.
As for your question well you basically just have to trust the science. At some point a rat in a lab probably was intentionally injured next to another rat in the same position and one would get the treatment and the other not. They would then see who healed faster. Things like Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen have been around a long time and studied extensively so they have a good understanding of it's efficacy.
Lastly placebo effect seems to be a real effect so if you do something and you think it might help it might help.
Sleep on a firm mattress. Stretch daily. Lift weights 3x a week, for 2x upper body focus and 1x leg day. Cardio 3x a week on days you don’t lift. High protein and low fat every day. Low sugar and carbs.
Pain comes as you age. It isn’t unique to modern man, other than we typically live longer than ancient man.
If you do this plan you can still cheat. Drink, party, eat whatever. You invest effort so you can enjoy life when the moment arises.
Actually the "drink plenty" thing, if you're referring to alcohol, isn't something I can do. I quit (or cut down to insignificant levels) after observing is effect on me via my Garmin stats. Everything goes bad: HRV drops, resting heart rate goes up and sleep scores is terrible. One beer or one glass of white wine with a meal around 6pm is ok. But a night out with the guys makes me look like a very sick 80 year old. Heart rate barely drops below 80 while I'm asleep. Normally it's 48-54 BPM through the night. And if I go for a light run the day after having two or three beers, my heart rate is at least 20 BPM higher. So I made a rule: no exertion after alcohol, no alcohol when I'm already compromised (eg: unwell, when those stats are already bad)
Fēnix 7 Pro Solar Sapphire. I don't know how it compares to Apple, but I love it. Very long battery life (well over a week) and it has sufficient sensors for me. I get blood oxygen, heart monitor (pulse, HRV), altitude, extremely good GPS, message notification mirroring from my phone with canned responses, touchscreen and buttons. The "proper" LED light is more useful than I thought it would be. Garmin Pay only works with Revolut in my country, but at least it's usable - so do your homework here. It can track lots of sports I don't do, I only just it for cycling, running and swimming.
Aside from raw sensor metrics, as someone else said, their Body Battery is pretty decent. The biggest thing for me was seeing a long tail chart for things like sleep score, HRV, average resting heart rate etc and noticing sharp differences on days that I was either sick or drinking alcohol. The effects of a couple of beers on me was similar to COVID (except that they only lasted about 24 hours). But these are things you'll get with any device with long enough battery life that you'll wear it "all the time"
I switched from a Garmin Instinct (several years ago) after having used Garmin GPS devices and watches while in the military to an Apple Watch Ultra now. The quantified scientist channel on youtube had some views that helped me decide (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVhmzxpw5Gg).
Hardware-wise they're largely similar, with some additional edge use cases (depending on who you are ofc) for fitness and outdoors with Garmin.
On the Garmin side for software, one thing I really appreciated on Garmin was the "body battery", or estimate of your energy, as well as health trends, etc. Apple has caught up with many of the features in the last year, and has a little ways to go. Apps like Athlytic do a good job filling the gap, but Apple really is making that gap quite small. Garmin locks your workout data down to its garden somewhat limiting your exports and has it more readily cloud accessible than I'd prefer; I felt the Apple privacy protections were better after reading the TOCs and looking at how the data is stored on each service.
What ultimately made me decide to go with Apple Watch is the above data consideration, the smooth functionality and integration with my iPhone, and the rapid pace of development Apple has had. Also, the cellular, texting (not saying it's the preferred method), Apple pay, etc. are all great to have on the Apple Watch and I can go for a run with only that.
After I paid more attention to my body metrics, I also changed my habits and started focusing on hydration more, when I drank alcohol and how much, and I was able to make good choices that help me feel much better to tackle the next day.
The accuracy isn’t as important as the trend. Don’t expect hospital grade ecg results but either can certainly tell you if things are better or worse since you’re wearing the same sensor.
I’ve got the AW Ultra and I’m quite fond of it, ability to use it without carrying my phone (even audible audiobooks) is the killer for me.
I have a Garmin Epix Pro. I highly recommend the Epix/Fenix line, and these measurements / metrics are far superior to what you get with an Apple Watch (my wife has an Ultra). The differences become even starker if you are an avid athlete and use your Garmin to track your workouts/performances.
Actually sleeping on a softer mattress leads to more restful sleep for me. I used to sleep on a firm but my partner tries to get the softest mattress she can and I've found that it works a lot better for me than my old firm mattress did. The moveable bases, when adjusted correctly, also allow me to completely relax when I'm asleep and I rest a lot better under those conditions. I notice the difference now whenever I'm traveling because the hotel beds are usually rock hard. Mattress salespeople actually do know what they're talking about some of the time.
I don't know. Humans have slept on the ground for hundreds of thousands of years and now soft mattresses are supposed to be better? Call me unconvinced.
(FWIW, to counter your personal experience with some of my own anecdotal evidence, I always sleep much better on firm mattresses.)
Humans suffered colds without antibiotics for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because we can endure certain circumstances does not make them optimal. Our ancestors certainly didn't avoid softer sleeping spots because of some benefit the firmness of the ground provided.
Humans didn't sleep directly on the ground. Even in hot environments if the ground is even a little damp it will suck all the heat out of your body and chill you to death. What humans have always done is built an insulating mattress out of whatever material is at-hand and then slept on that. You can sleep on straw, dry grass, dry leaves, sticks, burlap or whatever you can find. But you never just sleep straight on the ground.
Ah yes, nothing like giving unsolicited advice without even knowing what medical condition the other person has. You mean well, but it's a crude oversimplification to think every problem is just a matter of just work out the same way I do. For some reason, this phenomenon seems to be common in people who found sports a bit later in life, I'm guessing it's had a big positive impact and they want everyone to experience the same. Coaches and athletes tend to be much less quick to give shotgun advice, as they understand there's considerable depth to the problem.
You're framing a very opinionated (and hotly contested) take "high protein, low fat, low carb" presented as universal truth as just "suggesting to eat well".
Suggesting lifting weights three times a week when all you know is the person has a problem with their joints is not only unhelpful, it can be downright detrimental to their health. It's like recommending someone morbidly obese go for a run. It might be fine, but it might also destroy their joints for the rest of their life, and you can't know which it is without knowing more about their situation and condition.
A wide variety of joint issues are improved by performing a slow and steady progressive overload with lifting weights. Not all of them, of course, and yes there are some issues that preclude lifting, but this seems rather pedantic. There are a trillion things that most humans can do with no detrimental impact that a small subset can't. Trying to couch every suggestion based on edge cases is silly.
The overwhelming majority of people would benefit from doing resistance training 3x a week, cardio 3x a week, and shifting their diet towards more protein and less carbs and fat. People who fall outside of the large majority due to specific medical conditions need to understand their medical conditions and how they impact their daily life, because expecting everyone else to always take into account these issues is unreasonable and unproductive.
> It's like recommending someone morbidly obese go for a run
To be frank, this is a dumb point. The morbidly obese person probably can’t even run for 30 seconds. It won’t destroy their joints for the rest of their life. Suggesting activity over inactivity is good advice for basically every human alive.
Hardly so. I worked as a coach when I was younger and the number of people who hurt themselves this way is considerable, likewise for many completely preventable injuries at the gym. Usually people only turn to professional help once some damage is already done. To exemplify my point, the average BMI in the US is roughly between overweight and obese. If someone in that weight range decides that the treadmill is the way to turn their life around, they will most likely come away with serious injuries if they keep it up.
Suggesting activity is good, yes, but suggesting someone should start with lifting specifically when they have issues with their joints without any further context is moronic.
A fair amount of anecdotal data though, it has helped me and others that I know. While the effect is pretty mild it is positive. Having a lifelong chronic condition I’m very sensitive to changes and have no discernible placebo effect. I’ve tried so many things that my prior belief when trying something new is that it wont work, so it’s a nice unexpected surprise when it does.
I am aware of survivorship bias but for that to apply BPC157 would have to be killing people, this peptide is widely used so if it was killing people we would know due to investigations into their deaths.
People usually hear about this stuff peer to peer and they report back to their peers if it helped or not, so there is a before and after, and for those people there isn’t a selection criteria biased on success. If people don’t report back then others become very interested in why.
I don't think "ghosts" was meant to imply the compound is killing people, just give an example of something people believe in without scientific evidence.
Fair point, I did misread the comment as a selection bias as opposed to a 'Reductio ad absurdum' argument.
Insulin and Ozempic are both bioactive peptides, which is not to say BPC157 is anywhere as strong as either of them, but it's not easily dismissed either. Nowhere near the absurdities of ghosts and homeopathy.
Ok, fine, compare it instead to misleading anecdotal evidence surrounding dietary supplements. We know vitamins(/minerals/whatever) are compounds that are strictly necessary for life. We know that some health outcomes are tied to deficiencies or surpluses of these molecules. We know that in some, very specific cases, a disease is most effectively treated with OTC supplements.
We also know that, despite the vast quantities of anecdotal evidence readily available, taking 500% of your recommended daily value of Vitamin C will not actually effect the duration of your upper-respiratory tract infection. In fact, even ignoring the quality control issues in many commercial supplements, sometimes you can't even treat the deficiency of a specific nutrient with oral supplementation. And yet, again, many people will happily attest to the lifechanging benefits of supplementation to counteract a deficiency they likely never had.
Ok, some people are crazy therefore all anecdotal data is useless? Seems like a bit of a stretch. Someone tells you the weather is nice outside do you demand to see a peer reviewed study to that effect?
I have been wanting one of these and on multiple occasions tried to find some good quality lights. I have not been able to find one that I feel is trustworthy. Do you have any EU based recommendations?
get a broad spectrum red light bulb, that is most well understood and is least risky. Cons is the targetted spectrum would be only a small portion of it but good thing is it is a 4$ cheap test. It worked for me for smaller issues, like minor burns, cuts etc.
Build your own. But direct from Alibaba or mouser or digikey.
The main science behind it is to hit the absorption peaks of a mitochondrial enzyme. You can make em bright, but be limited on how long you can use it, or dim and be forced to use it constantly for the same effect.
Pulse width modulation is very important in this for penetration. High intensity allows for deeper penetration, but heats up cells causing stress. The ideal scenario is a really strong light, run at a really low duty cycle, allowing for both intensity AND low average wattage, this lessening thermal issues
There might be other mechanisms of actions, as there are so many papers that say "light good", but until they can give a mechanism of action, I'm sticking with what I know
Some wavelengths don't penetrate so deep, and not all bulbs are the same brightness.
I've seen obvious lies on some product descriptions on internet listings, therefore I wouldn't trust a specification claim like "x nm" or "y lumen", and unless I had tools to measure them I would not rely on them meeting those specifications.
Lumens being perceputual brightness means any package listing it for IR is definitely lying; but that only makes it a first-pass filter, "no false positives" does not mean "no false negatives".
Yeah but like, don't buy from temu or something, buy from digikey etc and just wire it yourself, its cheap enough to be able to fail 20 times without costing more than a burger.
My roomba was cleaning much better 4 years ago than last 2 years, their app was slick 4 years ago and clunky in last 2 years. Random Product innovations degraded the core product. They did get complacent.
This isn't specifically commenting about your, but I love how wildly different these comments are. The one currently below you said they improved when they switched to a plant-based diet.
Everyone is different, but I just thought it was funny to see how different everyone is.
I'd imagine both diets cut out bad things while prioritizing either mostly meat or mostly plants. E.g you go from a poor, unplanned diet to an improved, focused diet and it will work well.
I am eating lots of plants along with meat, but I would say my 75% calories now come from meat. I dont have stomach acidity (i used to have it since grade 4), frequent migraines, IBS. I have increased mental clarity, better focus, better sleep.
I would attribute most of these changes to grains/gluten reduction than meat adoption.
Quantum effects can change thermodynamic parameters. If something seems bizzare in thermodynamic models, next step is to understand quantum physics. This includes modification of energy needed for reaction to phase change energy needs.
