Body later?
-
@Ryrynz said in Body later?:
@TwoCables It's just a shame the English isn't.
For the last time, it's correct. You only think it's incorrect because you don't know what it's actually saying. If you knew, then you would be able to see just how perfect and correct the English is. As I said, do the research on the science. If you refuse to do that, then just drop it because this is going nowhere.
-
@Ryrynz It's a new way of talking about the body. We want to get the science right. The English can be "wrong" until the rest of the world catches up. ¯\(ツ)/¯
@lorna
-
@Ryrynz Read about the recent Nobel Prize award in Physiology/Medicine 2017:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2017/advanced-medicineprize2017.pdf -
This post is deleted! -
@TwoCables "you don't know what it's actually saying"
LOL, that's the whole point. It's pidgin English and does not communicate any information. For the last time, it's a useless statement.
-
@TwoCables Why are you so committed to this bad English being correct when it is so clearly incorrect?
-
@TwoCables Why don't you explain what it means, then? Instead of defending the indefensible? If it was useful English, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Wow.
-
This post is deleted! -
@adavies4756 I agree with your assessment of this sentence basically being pidgin English, the process is late, not the body. A single processes or even all processes within the body are not known as the body, so therefore a body cannot be late or later.
-
I have to admit, it puzzled me a bit too. I thought it might have been, "light makes your body 'go to sleep' later".
-
From what I understand so far, describing with only a few words (and broader than just melatonin and sleep).
The body in combination with the rest of the environment, functions as a clock. Therefore the body can be earlier or later when the environment is not what the body expects to sense. If the clock runs out of sync, it will have relative negative (energy) consequences and the amount of "work" the body can perform (life) decreases. Less energy equals being more sick. No energy equals being dead.
-
@lorna said in Body later?:
¯_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Here, you can have an extra arm (I think that's how it works, sorry if you have extra arms!
It requires three right arms (on the left side).
-
Sigh. I'm tired of this.
-
@Tungsten_smooth Hey thanks! TIL. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Le-Pham you are on the right track.
@rwvlasblom wins the "took the time to read and understand the information in this thread" award.
Thanks to those of you who are taking the time to weigh in on the language use here. We are reading all of your reactions and opinions with interest, both the good and the bad. The complaint that it doesn't convey useful information is a fair one as clearly the current language doesn't covey useful information to several people talking about it here. As we've said before, this is a work in progress and it's difficult to simplify. How we talk about it (and the words we use) will change over time.
I love the passion here, thank you for sharing your perspectives. A reminder to all to keep things polite. Repeated personal attacks on other users, pot-stirring by trying to start an argument, and opening multiple threads about a topic will all result in getting a cool-down period from the forum.
-
@Le-Pham It turns out that sleep and circadian rhythms are only somewhat related, and getting them to line up is why this is all so difficult.
If the two things (your need for sleep and your circadian rhythms) are aligned, you might find it easier to fall asleep at night (but you still have to go to bed). There are times in the circadian day when it is much harder to fall asleep, and especially for older people, there are circadian times that will tend to wake you up, maybe before you intended to.
We think circadian biology is fundamental enough to health that we should not over-simplify to imply that it "causes" sleep or anything like that. It's a separate process and it controls a majority of the systems in the body.
But the circadian clock IS the clock from the body's perspective.
-
Hi all,
So, if I understand correctly, it is about letting your body's internal clock synchronize with the natural day and light rythm to be healty again (like living in the woods or something), and thus, feeling better or les miserable.
Could it be an idea to have a quote saying: "Using F.lux helps to synchronize your body with nature's (natural) rythm?"
I would use the words "synchronize" (desynchronize) and "harmonize" instead of "later" and "earlier", which I feel is rather blunt and needs more of an explanation.
-
@Marty Thanks - what you say is exactly right and what we would do if we could find another way to explain.
In a way, we heard a lot of other voices over the past few years that were talking about circadian timing and light in ways that were simply not right, and we wanted to explain that your body's rhythms are quite important and tend to work a certain way, whether or not you are a person who thinks they can achieve super-human feats of not sleeping, or whether you don't want to think about these things at all!
For instance, we hear people talk about all blue light being bad (ignoring perhaps that the sky is really blue), and so they use f.lux at strong orange settings during the daytime. It seemed first very important to us to explain that light is not at all like some kind of bad thing that you simply avoid. In fact, for most people seeking out more light is the best thing they can do.
While everyone knows about the night owls who stay up too late on a computer, there are a lot of people (usually older) who wake up well before they want to, and they need different advice to keep the schedule they would like.
We are saying here that there is a time of day when seeing bright light makes your clock run earlier and helps to improve its amplitude (meaning you will feel more alert in the daytime and more sleepy at night), and another time that makes it run later, when your body is expecting to wind down for sleep, so if it sees light, it acts as if the sun is still up and becomes later.
I have drawn hundreds of visualizations of this and tried to simplify it many times (we didn't really ship any of them), so this is a work in progress, and the best way to communicate it is still likely in the future. But if we can bring some awareness of how these systems work in the body and what it really takes to make them a little bit more healthy, it will be good.
I guess when we do this kind of thing, the idea is that we need to apply circadian ideas to many areas of life: to lighting our buildings of course, but also to when we eat, to when we take medicine, to "when" we require people to do their best work.
And so we think this complexity in a way is necessary to start that bigger discussion, and in that way we aren't saying "here is the perfect way to make a screen" because we think instead that we should be changing our houses, our workplaces, and many other things.
-
@herf
"For instance, we hear people talk about all blue light being bad (ignoring perhaps that the sky is really blue), and so they use f.lux at strong orange settings during the daytime."I would recommend reading the work of:
- Douglas C. Wallace
- Dr. Alexander Wunsch
- Dr. Gerald H. Pollack
- Dr. Jack Kruse
This has to do with mitochondria and energy transfer. I am oversimplifying, because I am not at all an expert on these subjects and I will not use many words.
Basically sunlight balances the "blue" light with "red". Display devices do not. Blue has the effect of increasing the distance between the mitochondrial proteins. Red decreases the distance. In other words, relatively more blue slows down electron tunneling. Decreasing the amount of protons that can be pumped to make ATP. Effectively decreasing available energy per time. Less energy, more sick. No energy, death, no more time.
While blue has its "role" in remaining healthy. Changing one's environment by sitting inside, watching a blue screen has downsides over time. Of course these effects are small and will not be directly noticed. But small effects can result in big effects.
Other negative effects of chronic blue light expose from the top of my head:
- dehydration within the cell
- destroy DHA
Some books related to the subject discussed (some more than others):
- Epi-Paleo RX by Jack Kruse
- Health And Light by John Ott
- The Body Electric by Robert O. Becker, Gary Selden
- Cross Currents by Dr. Robert O. Becker
- Going Somewhere by Andrew Marino
- The Fourth Phase Of Water by Gerald H. Pollack
- Light in Shaping Life by Roeland van Wijk
- Light Medicine of the Future by Jacob Liberman
- The Healing Sun – Sunlight and Health in the 21st Century by Richard Hobday
- Life On The Edge by JohnJoe Mcfadden, Jim Al-Khalili
- Power, Sex, Suicide by Nick Lane
- Life Ascending by Nick Lane
- The Vital Question by Nick Lane
- Oxygen by Nick Lane
- The Rainbow and the Worm - The Physics of Organisms by Mae-Wan Ho
- Living Rainbow H2O by Mae-Wan Ho
- Cosmosapiens by John Hands
-
@rwvlasblom Nobody would say that a screen is a replacement for actual daylight, and this is not what we would claim either. But a screen used in the morning can have an effect on circadian timing. And mainly, the choices about how much daylight you let into your workspace during the day will have a big effect too. In this case, more light during the day is better, and brighter screens allow us to open the windows and enjoy the sunshine. People working in dark rooms are not helping themselves.
The rhetorical argument used by Kruse/Wunsch (distinct from the basic science) is incorrect because they talk about colors without considering intensity. This is not good science.
The effects that may happen in very extreme light levels (brighter than daylight) are not the same as the ones from domestic sources and screens. We're talking about differences of 100-1000x in intensity, and often more.
When you talk about any radiative hazard, you have to say what range of intensity is involved, and in this case, it's pretty clear that (because they're way too dim) screens do not cause harm in the first place that can be balanced with red light. And similarly, the spectra we're talking about are fundamentally similar to daylight.
I think everyone's missing that a blue sky is 20,000-50,000K - it's very blue. Only civil twilight gives us a "purple" spectrum (with red+blue), and this is again at lower intensity levels.
I wish these authors would do the work to explain their claims by bringing actual power units (how many photons per unit area, and which wavelengths) and relate them to existing studies, even if they're rodent models. The work I've done in measuring and modeling these effects says there isn't any risk here, and these claims are way off-base.
However, shutting yourself off from the sunlight all the day has a real risk, and we work hard to explain how this all works.
-
@herf said in Body later?:
@rwvlasblom Nobody would say that a screen is a replacement for actual daylight, and this is not what we would claim either. But a screen used in the morning can have an effect on circadian timing. And mainly, the choices about how much daylight you let into your workspace during the day will have a big effect too. In this case, more light during the day is better, and brighter screens allow us to open the windows and enjoy the sunshine. People working in dark rooms are not helping themselves.
The rhetorical argument used by Kruse/Wunsch (distinct from the basic science) is incorrect because they talk about colors without considering intensity. This is not good science.
The effects that may happen in very extreme light levels (brighter than daylight) are not the same as the ones from domestic sources and screens. We're talking about differences of 100-1000x in intensity, and often more.
When you talk about any radiative hazard, you have to say what range of intensity is involved, and in this case, it's pretty clear that (because they're way too dim) screens do not cause harm in the first place that can be balanced with red light. And similarly, the spectra we're talking about are fundamentally similar to daylight.
I think everyone's missing that a blue sky is 20,000-50,000K - it's very blue. Only civil twilight gives us a "purple" spectrum (with red+blue), and this is again at lower intensity levels.
I wish these authors would do the work to explain their claims by bringing actual power units (how many photons per unit area, and which wavelengths) and relate them to existing studies, even if they're rodent models. The work I've done in measuring and modeling these effects says there isn't any risk here, and these claims are way off-base.
However, shutting yourself off from the sunlight all the day has a real risk, and we work hard to explain how this all works.
Thank you for the reply and the information you bring with it. I will read about this to find out of this is true.
