ThunderBird said:
thorien said:
Y
ThunderBird said:
thorien said:
ThunderBird said:
thorien said:
Evidence doesn't support any real benefit from blue light glasses.
I'm not sure what your source is for that, but there's a huge stack of research on how blue and green light suppress melatonin. On top of that, saying something that broad without citing even 1 source is pretty wild haha.
A Cochrane systematic review is available, covering 17 randomised controlled trials with 619 participants recruited.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013244.pub2/full
Have fun, haha
Haven't finished going through the whole thing, but I wanted to come back and point out that it does state specifically that better sleep was reported by the people in those trials. It also admits that it has no clue what kind of glasses were used in any of the studies. On top of that, you're free to cherry pick whatever suits you from these. I'm still working my way through it, so my mind could change, but roughly half of the studies in there are ones I can't get to.
View attachment 10412
Frontiers | The influence of blue light on sleep, performance and wellbeing in young adults: A systematic review
Introduction: Blue light from electronic devices has a bad reputation. It has a wavelength which may influence our circadian rhythm and cause bad sleep. But ...
View attachment 10413
www.frontiersin.org
What this systematic review says is essentially the same: the research is a mixed bag. I do appreciate the effort to back up your point, though. Still, it doesn't help with what I'm after at all, which is a recommendation for blue/green light filtering glasses.
Sorry, but it's clear you have hardly any familiarity with research papers, if any at all. Nothing is being cherry picked here — this is a Cochrane review, which sits at the top of the evidence hierarchy.
Here's the short version:
According to the review, when it came to easing computer-related eye strain, blue-light filtering spectacles showed no advantage over spectacles without such filtering; their impact on best corrected visual acuity was minimal or nonexistent, and their effect on sleep quality remains inconclusive.
Key findings from the high quality study were as follows:
- Compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses, there may be no short-term benefits of blue-light filtering lenses for lowering visual fatigue during computer use
- Information on how blue-light filtering lenses might affect visual acuity is limited, and their effects on sleep-related measures are unclear
- Adverse events tied to blue-light filtering lenses were reported infrequently, yet they included worse depressive symptoms, headache, discomfort while wearing the glasses and lower mood.
Still, best of luck hunting down a pair to buy regardless. My reply, though, was aimed at your doubting my claim that they offer no clinical benefit.
Because they don't.
Appreciate the assistance, but this still isn’t what I’m after, and I’m sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way. That said, you 100% can pick through any study and twist it however you want. Also, for some reason, every reply you post gets read in my head with an elderly British voice and I enjoy it. And honestly, I’m not here to fight with strangers online — I came for suggestions.
But since arguing with people on the internet is entertaining:
617 people across 17 trials is a pretty tiny sample. Those figures make it seem substantial, but that simply isn’t true, particularly when the ages and countries are all over the map — the sample isn’t large and it isn’t uniform. Anyone who has conducted research or sat through a basic statistics course understands that. It’s not as though you’re hunting something super rare or risky in this data set.
Most of those studies didn’t focus on or care about sleep. That’s the thing I care about.
This systematic review admits they had no clue what glasses the participants wore. If you were actually trying to collect solid data, that would be the very first thing you’d nail down, and you’d include a chart showing which light wavelengths get filtered — that would be damning proof.
The strongest takeaway, if you truly read the paper (and I’m sure you did, forming your own educated view), would be this: inconclusive, at least regarding sleep. The data is all over the place and poor throughout. Not the paper’s fault — there just isn’t enough quality data.
Also, nobody cares which journal something appears in, or at least they shouldn’t. It might be a decent starting point for finding credible papers or sources, but the data is what counts, not where it was published. If someone put a full paper doing solid science on Wikipedia, it would be just as valuable as anywhere else.
Lastly, if this improved my sleep by 5% over a lifetime, I’d personally consider that a win, even if it were a placebo — especially since it costs so little and has 0 drawbacks. People here buy and use things that could very well have huge downsides with ZERO evidence.
Also, I hope you’re reading my comments in a cowboy accent
