![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 13:37:31
I know this is a strange question,and it would probably take a real expert to answer it.--Since sunlight is important for good moods(less depression etc.)can wearing glasses or contact lenses all the time be bad.Since glasses and contacts BLOCK UV rays from entering the eyes could one benefit by going out in the sun withOUT glasses or contacts in order to be able to absorb UV rays through the eyes.Simply put are UV rays in moderation without being blocked by contacts/glasses good for mental health?I wear contact lenses all the time.
Posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 13:41:23
In reply to Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 13:37:31
To clarify.I do not mean staring at the sun.I just mean being out in the sun without wearing glasses or contact lenses.
Posted by desolationrower on April 9, 2009, at 14:44:49
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 13:41:23
i think its blue light that is relevant. and UV on the skin->vitamin D.
-d/r
Posted by mav27 on April 9, 2009, at 14:47:33
In reply to Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 13:37:31
The sun just needs to hit your skin. I'm not even sure the uv light on your eyes would benifit at all. The UV light reacts with something under the skin to create vitamin D, it's this Vitamin D that helps with mood ect (although primarily it's for calcium/bone absorbtion). I doubt the substance the UV light reacts with is in or behind the eye balls.
Posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 14:56:51
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc. » odon, posted by mav27 on April 9, 2009, at 14:47:33
Maybe I'm wrong but I heard most of the benefits(mental health wise) of sun exposure are when the sun hits your eyes.The skin is mainly for 'just'converting it to vitamin D.There are alot of other factors besides vitamin D that play into benefits from sun exposure.If it was just vitamin D one can just take the vitamin in pill form.
Posted by Zana on April 9, 2009, at 15:00:38
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 14:56:51
Yup, my understanding is that the light needs to hit your eyes. That's certainly the way my light box has been explained to me. I think the same thing would be true of any filter that blocks UV rays - you're not getting the light you need.
Zana
Posted by Phillipa on April 9, 2009, at 16:39:17
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by Zana on April 9, 2009, at 15:00:38
In order to avoid cataracts which I have two small ones inmportant to wear Sun glasses outside to block the rays. May be different than a lightbox. As the sun can damage your eyes. Phillipa
Posted by desolationrower on April 9, 2009, at 17:23:09
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by Phillipa on April 9, 2009, at 16:39:17
BLUE LIGHT _NOT_ UV LIGHT NEEDS TO HIT YOUR EYES.
BLUE.
Variations in the wavelength spectrum of light
have received relatively little study. Although
the earliest studies
2
used full-spectrum fluorescent
lampswith more blue and ultraviolet (UV) A
energy than conventional cool- and soft-white
broad-spectrum fluorescent lampsthese were soon
found unnecessary.
18-20
Finer distinctions between
lamp types have focused on the action of narrow
wavelength bands. A comparison of efficacy of
non-overlapping green and red fluorescent illu-
mination equated for quantum emission
21
found
minimal response to red, while green produced a
response similar to that of broad-spectrum white
light. A related comparison
22
found white light bet-
ter than both red and blue. These studies left open
the question of whether the white-light response
is primarily determined by its green component.
Recent attention has focused on the blue region,
which actively suppresses melatonin production
23
and elicits circadian rhythm phase shifts.
24,25
In a
comparison of blue light with red light of lower
intensity (designed as a placebo control), the anti-
depressant response to blue was superior, similar to
that seen for white light in other studies.
26
Whether
there is a therapeutic advantage to narrow-band
green or blue over white illumination requires fur-
ther study, particularly regarding their tolerability
and adverse effects.ABSTRACT
The general therapeutic effect of light on seasonal affective disorder (SAD) has been widely acknowledged. However, the antidepressant effect of light does not seem to be the same for different spectra of light. In this study, the authors attempted to study the spectral properties of phototherapy for SAD using a meta-analytical procedure. The findings suggested that light of short to medium wavelengths (blue/green/yellow) seem to be essential for the therapeutic effect of light on SAD. Red wavelengths were relatively ineffective. It was then postulated that SAD may be predisposed and/or precipitated by the inefficiency of the S and M cones in the retina. Furthermore, ultraviolet (UV) waves did not seem to be essential for SAD symptom alleviation by artificial light. Therefore, these potentially harmful UV waves should be blocked in any clinical application of phototherapy for SAD.
Dark therapy for bipolar disorder using amber lenses for blue light blockade
James PhelpsCorresponding Author Informationemail address
Received 19 May 2007; accepted 22 May 2007. published online 16 July 2007.
SummaryDark Therapy, in which complete darkness is used as a mood stabilizer in bipolar disorder, roughly the converse of light therapy for depression, has support in several preliminary studies. Although data are limited, darkness itself appears to organize and stabilize circadian rhythms. Yet insuring complete darkness from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. the following morning, as used in several studies thus far, is highly impractical and not accepted by patients. However, recent data on the physiology of human circadian rhythm suggests that virtual darkness may be achievable by blocking blue wavelengths of light. A recently discovered retinal photoreceptor, whose fibers connect only to the biological clock region of the hypothalamus, has been shown to respond only to a narrow band of wavelengths around 450nm. Amber-tinted safety glasses, which block transmission of these wavelengths, have already been shown to preserve normal nocturnal melatonin levels in a light environment which otherwise completely suppresses melatonin production. Therefore it may be possible to influence human circadian rhythms by using these lenses at night to blunt the impact of electrical light, particularly the blue light of ubiquitous television screens, by creating a virtual darkness. One way to investigate this would be to provide the lenses to patients with severe sleep disturbance of probable circadian origin. A preliminary case series herein demonstrates that some patients with bipolar disorder experience reduced sleep-onset latency with this approach, suggesting a circadian effect. If amber lenses can effectively simulate darkness, a broad range of conditions might respond to this inexpensive therapeutic tool: common forms of insomnia; sleep deprivation in nursing mothers; circadian rhythm disruption in shift workers; and perhaps even rapid cycling bipolar disorder, a difficult- to -treat variation of a common illness.
ABSTRACT
Objective: Published dosing guidelines for treatment of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) refer to photopic lux, which is not appropriate for short-wavelength light. Short wavelengths are most potent for many non-visual responses to light. If SAD therapy were similarly mediated, standards utilizing lux risk overestimating necessary dose. We investigated antidepressant responses to light using two light-emitting diode (LED) sources, each emitting substantial short-wavelength light, but <2500 lux.
Method: A randomized, double-blind trial investigated 3-week 45 min/day out-patient treatment with blue-appearing (goLITE®) or blue-enriched white-appearing light in 18 moderately-depressed adults (12F, 49.1 ± 9.5 years). Equivalent numbers of photons within the short-wavelength range were emitted, but the white source emitted twice as many photons overall and seven-fold more lux.
Results: Depression ratings (SIGH-ADS; http://www.cet.org) decrease averaged 82% (SD = 17%) from baseline (P < 0.0001) in both white- and blue-light groups. Both sources were well tolerated.
Conclusion: Short-wavelength LED light sources may be effective in SAD treatment at fewer lux than traditional fluorescent sources.
Narrow-band blue-light treatment of seasonal affective disorder in adults and the influence of additional nonseasonal symptoms
Robert E. Strong, D.O. *, Barrie K. Marchant, M.S., Frederick W. Reimherr, M.D., Erika Williams, M.S.W., Poonam Soni, M.D., Ruth Mestas, CCRC
Mood Disorders Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
email: Robert E. Strong (robert.strong@hsc.utah.edu)*Correspondence to Robert E. Strong, Mood Disorders Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132
Keywords
seasonal affective disorder wavelength light therapy placebo-controlled randomizedAbstract
Background: Bright visible-spectrum light therapy has proven effective in the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) and recent basic research suggests that blue wavelengths 470 nm account for that effectiveness. To more stringently test the importance of these wavelengths, bright red-light was used for the placebo (control) condition. Methods: Thirty subjects meeting DSM-IV criteria for SAD were randomized to narrow-band light-emitting diode panels emitting blue- or red-light in this 3-week, parallel, double-blind trial. Twenty-five subjects participated in an open-label blue-light follow-up. Subjects were divided in a blinded, post hoc manner into two groups: SAD only and those experiencing depression with seasonal intensification. The outcome was assessed using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 item version (HAMD-17) and the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale - SAD version. Responders were defined by Clinical Global Impression - Improvement scale. Results: HAMD-17 scores improved more under the blue-light condition (51%) than under the red-light condition (32%) (P=.05). Further, in the blue arm 60% of subjects responded compared with 13% in the red arm (P=.01). During the open-label phase, subjects from both double-blind arms improved over baseline. SAD alone patients responded numerically better to treatment than those experiencing depression with seasonal intensification during both treatment periods. Conclusions: Narrow bandwidth blue-light therapy proved superior to red-light therapy. Blue-light therapy produced results similar to both previous 10,000 lux visible-spectrum light studies and many medication studies. The use of bright red panels supported claims that wavelengths of 470 nm account for the documented effectiveness of light therapy. Depression and Anxiety, 2009. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Posted by myco on April 10, 2009, at 12:30:20
In reply to Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 13:37:31
Slightly off topic in a way...
I know fluorescent lighting makes me depressed, makes me look ugly in a mirror, makes me anxious/insecure.
Also read a study on the effects of fluorescent lights on mood disorders and depression. Like people spending years in cubicals in office buildings under fluorescent lighting.
Perhaps fluorescent lighting is no replacement for natural light...draining on vitD or just lack of? not sure. I'm sure there is a connection in some way though, cant remember.
myco
-----
> I know this is a strange question,and it would probably take a real expert to answer it.--Since sunlight is important for good moods(less depression etc.)can wearing glasses or contact lenses all the time be bad.Since glasses and contacts BLOCK UV rays from entering the eyes could one benefit by going out in the sun withOUT glasses or contacts in order to be able to absorb UV rays through the eyes.Simply put are UV rays in moderation without being blocked by contacts/glasses good for mental health?I wear contact lenses all the time.
Posted by Phillipa on April 10, 2009, at 19:24:05
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc. » odon, posted by myco on April 10, 2009, at 12:30:20
Myco same here some stores trigger panic attacks think it's the source of lighting? Love Phillipa
Posted by rskontos on April 11, 2009, at 9:26:28
In reply to Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 9, 2009, at 13:37:31
Odon,
All my research into Vitamin D and how your body synthesizes it says that glasses do interfere with direct sunlight. I have not research light-boxes.
I researched this because my tests showed my vitamin D levels extremely low in the middle of the summer (July). And my doc recommended vitamin D supplementation.
In addition, the research stated that sunscreens applied prior to going out in the sun or during sun exposure, blocks the body's ability to utilize the sun to produce vitamin D.
The researchers did not recommend going out into the sun without sunscreen they recommended at least 2000 mg of vitamin taken daily.
Some very good information is at Life Extension website.
Their website is www.lef.org if you are interested. Very good site, very good supplements.
Now about contacts I am not sure if that is the same since most contacts are not tinted to decrease the sun's rays. At least I don't think so. I wear glasses constantly because I am very light sensitive, due to adrenal fatigue.
Hope this helps.
rsk
At life extensions website they have great information on how vitamin D helps not only with depression but so many other diseases/cancer afflictions. FYI
Posted by yxibow on April 12, 2009, at 0:03:27
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc. » odon, posted by myco on April 10, 2009, at 12:30:20
> Slightly off topic in a way...
>
> I know fluorescent lighting makes me depressed, makes me look ugly in a mirror, makes me anxious/insecure.
>
> Also read a study on the effects of fluorescent lights on mood disorders and depression. Like people spending years in cubicals in office buildings under fluorescent lighting.
>
> Perhaps fluorescent lighting is no replacement for natural light...draining on vitD or just lack of? not sure. I'm sure there is a connection in some way though, cant remember.
>
> myco
> -----Interesting -- second person who I've heard a similar story from. I have a 'orphan disorder' and basically besides some other extreme exaggerations, I am very sensitive to light and its been a very tough struggle.
Fluorescent lighting makes my confusion much worse. Patterns, navigating, its difficult.
As for other people who are sensitive or get migraines or the like, I believe, at least for myself, fluorescent lighting vibrates at 60hz, ans is garish, especially non-full spectrum or crummy industrial lighting.Its the 60hz that I can see on CRT monitors, although Seroquel with all its problems for me has at least helped functionality.
Some people can see 60hz naturally, although it doesn't necessarily bother them like I do.
I don't know how checkout clerks managed with what I could see as flickering CRTs. At least now they mostly use LCDs. Of course the current crop of LCDs are backlit with a small amount of fluorescent lighting. Some newer LCDs will be backlit with OLEDs (organic LEDs) and there are a few out already.
But back to lighting, I guess I have to ask my doctor about this again, I recall a comment about how I should expose myself to light at times. I do sometimes wear sunglasses -- when it was worst, I had to wear them inside nightclubs. Things have flipped around again, and my disorder migrates, and I may have to do that again :<
Anyhow, its been seven years, I don't remember what it was like before really.
-- Jay
Posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 11:26:49
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc. » myco, posted by yxibow on April 12, 2009, at 0:03:27
Appreciate all answers.The reason I originally asked this question is because I read a few articles saying that in order to fully benefit from the sun you must get "a little" UNblocked UV rays on the eyes.Again not staring at the sun,however unblocked by glasses and contact lenses.--rskontos,contact lenses if anything even block more than glasses bacause they cover the pupils of the eyes.With glasses at least some rays can come through the sides.--In the same articles I read,they said to avoid strong sunscreens too.In this day and age where people are told to avoid sun,cover-up etc. it's something to think about.Sunlight in moderation is very healthy in many ways,despite what skin doctors may say.
Posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 11:34:02
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by rskontos on April 11, 2009, at 9:26:28
To further add wearing glasses or contacts even NOT tinted makes no difference,UNtinted blocks UV rays the same as tinted,similair to sitting by a closed window on a sunny day. It will NOT give you a suntan.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 12, 2009, at 12:21:00
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 11:26:49
Why don't you provide a link to the article(s) you're referring to, so we can assess their content in a more deliberate way?
I'm having trouble finding any support for your thesis that UV light impinging on the eye is a good thing. The human cornea is virtually opaque at UV wavelengths, and cumulative exposure damages the cornea by forming cataracts. Not all contact lenses absorb UV light, and of those that do, none do so as well as the cornea behind them.
There are specific receptors on the retina tuned to blue-light frequencies, as mentioned by others. Artificial light is typically not very powerful at these frequencies, perhaps at best reaching only 10% of the intensity found in the noon-time shade outdoors. So, there certainly is both a spectral and intensity difference between artificial light and sunlight. Here's a nice full-text review article of the impact of light filtering on humans: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18757473
As to skin exposure to UV light, and the use of sunscreen, that is a different story altogether. There is a delicate risk/benefit balance at play that can only be applied on a case-by-case basis. There is no generalized good/bad recommendation to consider.
Lar
Posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 12:57:11
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc. » odon, posted by Larry Hoover on April 12, 2009, at 12:21:00
Larry,I do not know how to post links.However here is one site I read this information on.-- http://www.healself.org/sun.html.It may be easier to just type in www.healself.org/sun.html
Posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 13:01:50
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 12:57:11
Let me try posting that link again.I will say though that Larry you are probably right,and I realize there is alot of misinformation on the internet,that's why I like reading this site,because of real peoples exerience and knowledge. http.//www.healself.org/sun.html
Posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 13:04:45
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 12:57:11
Last time I'll try to post the link,hopefully it will work.-- http://www.healself.org/sun.html
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 12, 2009, at 13:56:22
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by odon on April 12, 2009, at 13:01:50
> I realize there is alot of misinformation on the internet.
I must conclude that the site to which you linked provides more than ample evidence for that statement.
I see only anecdote, quotes from unidentified sources, and claims with no evidence. The author contradicts himself more than once, also.
I picked one name from thee many quotations given, and it turns out that the particular "doctor" I randomly selected was charged and jailed repeatedly for practising medicine without a license, was charged with negligent homicide for starving a patient to death, was later bankrupted by a lawsuit brought by the family of someone else who died in his "care", and was totally bedridden by illness for the last 13 years of his life.
I'm sorry, but I find nothing of any value there. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on April 12, 2009, at 20:03:26
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc. » odon, posted by Larry Hoover on April 12, 2009, at 13:56:22
Have to comment on the link as agree totally with Larry. Jeez the sun so aged my skin I looked twenty years older than I am and hence spent thousands of dollars to try and undo some of the damage. I have age spots all over my body from too much sun. And two small cataracts due to sunexprossure. Please people wear good sunglasses and at leat a number 15 sunblock. I damaged myself horribly with the years of sun exposure. 10 minutes a day in the sun is enough for Vita D. Also Vita D is available in capsules in health food stores and blood tests to test the level of D mine was done by my endo and fine. Love Phillipa
Posted by yxibow on April 13, 2009, at 23:08:31
In reply to Re: Question about sunlight,UV rays,depression etc., posted by Phillipa on April 12, 2009, at 20:03:26
> Have to comment on the link as agree totally with Larry. Jeez the sun so aged my skin I looked twenty years older than I am and hence spent thousands of dollars to try and undo some of the damage. I have age spots all over my body from too much sun. And two small cataracts due to sunexprossure. Please people wear good sunglasses and at leat a number 15 sunblock. I damaged myself horribly with the years of sun exposure. 10 minutes a day in the sun is enough for Vita D. Also Vita D is available in capsules in health food stores and blood tests to test the level of D mine was done by my endo and fine. Love Phillipa
Different people, their ethnicity, etc, have a variety of responses to sun exposure.SPF is not a perfect measurement and in fact some high rated SPF factors aren't completely accurate.
But in general, it means that if you burn in 10 minutes, SPF 10 means probably you will have 100 minutes exposure maximum. UVA, according to Wikipedia anyhow, is not always protected enough, zinc oxide is an old medication and one effective though in sunscreen for UVA.
But people don't always burn in 10 minutes. Melanin, and other factors may mean someone in intense sun may not burn for 30 or 40 minutes.
Also the UV factor due to weather and ozone holes (which have been very slowly healing) makes a big difference as well.
People who live in areas with very little sun (England, Norway, etc) who go to tropical climates may burn more than those who are native to the area and have different melanin.
Cataracts are a matter of fact of aging, they don't necessarily have to do with sun exposure although they might in your case. They're often fairly benign and people can live for years with them without possibly being in need of surgery.
We're not the only creatures who need vitamin D from the sun -- I happen to keep water turtles and they need to come out and bask, like other reptiles to warm their blood and also make vitamin D3.
But there's plenty of vitamin D now added to milk and a variety of soymilks as well (which have calcium and other things added too), as pasteurization may reduce some vitamins.
In modest to very bright sunlight, UVA/UVB sunglasses are also important. They should be reliable, because having a dark object in front of your eyes (I prefer dark 'nascar' shades that cover your entire eyes... but that's also because I have issues with light), and having holes in it or improper protection, the dilation of your pupils from the darkness will let pure light in instead of UV protection.
However, being behind ordinary window glass will block UVB, not as much UVA, by itself. Specialized quartz glass may block other radiation.
You're right to say its prudent to wear sunscreen -- you're right -- typical European heritage and farming or being outdoors all the time can produce (never mind the social connotation) what is probably known as a "r*dn*ck" because of long term exposure to sun, which eventually the skin becomes tough and leathery.
As the song attributed to Baz Lurhman said "...always wear sunscreen."Well maybe not always, but if you're going to the beach or doing gardening in the heat of the day (which is actually worst not at noon but typically towards 1pm or so, give or take summertime).
Some people who burn in 5 minutes, may have to wear it a lot more.
-- tidings
Jay
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.