Sun Avoidance Decreases Lifespan

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Note that even 20mins of decent UV exposure is already quite a feat in many countries such as UK. Not much UV morning or evenings when getting to and from work. At those times of the day, UV level can be low even when it is bright outside. 20mins in direct sunlight means you took a very decent break outside and avoided the shade. I don't think most people get that.

PS. Effects from forcing a response from the body? That could be true, and similar to the effects brought about by many foods and supplements. Always have to keep that in mind when interpreting studies and symptoms, the short term vs the long term.

Yes, most people in the world have a chronic lack of sunlight for either work scheduling reasons or otherwise. Modulation of habits to include sun exposure during a lunch break is probably the most preferable solution.

Note that UV light will penetrate most clouds (except the really low ones), so unless it is actually really foggy, going outside will lead to UV exposure. That said, London will dip into the UV index 1-4 levels for most of the months surrounding winter, and most people will be all covered up. Artificial light may therefore be a solution.

But is it a good idea to have an artificial UV bulb for the winter months? Depends .... on both current health status and on ancestry (genetics).

Firstly, I would begin any artificial light experiment with artificial red and full spectrum light, since these have much more predictable and less harmful effects. Full spectrum incandescent bulbs are Peat's preferred solution, and I tend to agree.

If UV bulbs are to be used, then it's probably best used to actually mimic natural sunlight -- ie: morning to noon exposure. Some people seem to have decent effects with UV bulb exposure upon waking. Again, Your Mileage will vary. Experiment with caution.

NOTE: I'm just here to emphasise that UV light is powerful ;) and that any powerful tool needs to be treated with the appropriate respect.

....
 

paymanz

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
2,707
@tyw
on that post on jack kruse site, how is that you compared energy of sunlight to sugar? i dont get the purpose of that comparison.a carbon molecule always should involve apparently, it being sugar,fat or ketones.and forming co2.
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
@tyw
on that post on jack kruse site, how is that you compared energy of sunlight to sugar? i dont get the purpose of that comparison.a carbon molecule always should involve apparently, it being sugar,fat or ketones.and forming co2.

That is because the Kruse community is obsessed with the "Food is Light" concept ;) That statement was made in the context of that madness, and only makes sense in that context.

However, technically speaking, it could be said that during the energetic transfer from NADH to NAD+ at Complex 1, a "UV quanta of energy" is subtracted from NADH, and running down the.

NOTE: We infer that this quanta of energy was "equivalent to that of a UV frequency photon" taken based on the differences in absorption spectrum of NADH vs NAD+.​

So yeah, I guess you you technically say that "Light Energy" was transferred, but I don't find that a useful description :bag:. As far as I'm concerned, you need Molecular Energy carriers like NADH for the body to function. Anyone who just goes "food is light" is ignoring all biological function.

....
 

misery guts

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
128
Interesting stuff...

What is your opinion on his recommendations (and measure of importance) for avoiding EMF and ice baths, and are they based on the same mistakes you think he is making with the quantum effects of light on metabolism?

When you say "Firstly, I would begin any artificial light experiment with artificial red and full spectrum light, since these have much more predictable and less harmful effects.", would you consider this - Infrared light device - Red Light Man to be within a healthy 'red' range? Thanks!
 
Last edited:

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
What is your opinion on his recommendations (and measure of importance) for avoiding EMF and ice baths, and are they based on the same mistakes you think he is making with the quantum effects of light on metabolism?

When you say "Firstly, I would begin any artificial light experiment with artificial red and full spectrum light, since these have much more predictable and less harmful effects.", would you consider this - Infrared light device - Red Light Man to be within a healthy 'red' range? Thanks!

Ice Baths are bad in the doses they talk about. I wrote a whole article on this :bigtears: -- Cold Thermogenesis is a Hormetic Stressor

Acute full-body cold exposure is fine (<5 mins), and can be definitely helpful IFF (BIG 'if and only if') you've got robust adrenal and thyroid function.

Longer stretches of localised cold exposure also fine (like icing a small part of the body for 20 mins).

Again, it's really a matter of common sense here ... if the cold is making you feel bad, it's probably bad.

I was just pushing back at the notion that cold exposure was somehow good :banghead:. The results of the many people who failed on the protocols (won't name names) are empirical evidence that you can't take a sick person and make them better with Chronic cold exposure.

----

Avoidance of Non-native EMF is a big factor. Extreme Low Frequency (ELF) EMF is the most harmful, most likely because it corresponds to the same "Schumann band" of frequencies that are present natively on earth -- ie: these frequencies are used for cell signalling, and the ELF EMF from say a 60Hz power line interferes directly with this.

High-frequency Radio waves and higher frequencies (anything about 100kHz, note that WiFi is often in the 3+Ghz range, ie: 3,000+kHz) are stressors. Look up the work of Robert Becker and his assistant Andrew Marino for the direct measurable effects (like an immediate spike in cortisol) when exposed to these fields.

Power matters here. The common recommendation is at <0.5mG for ELF and <1.0mW/cm^2 for Radio EMF, and ideally lower. (The earth's field is comparatively very weak).

Sidenote: I welcome the day when the range-limitations of low Kilohertz Frequency transmission base stations are surpassed by the ability to make many such base stations cheaply -- which would be spaced closely together to preserve signal fidelity. Low kilohertz range EMF is not harmful according to every study I've managed to dig up -- Kilohertz Range EMF is Likely Less Harmful

Personally, I use an Ethernet cable and sit 4m / about 14ft away from my router. At that distance, the emitted field becomes negligible (I've got meters to test).

Of course, I don't carry a cell phone with me at all unless I really need to (almost never). Sorry, but I like to say "I hate computers. Therefore I am a Programmer. ;)"

----

That red light device indicates:

Spectrum
660nm – 14%
680nm – 6%
760nm – 10%
830nm – 30%
850nm – 30%
940nm – 10%​

The 660nm wavelength band is definitely directly useful for mitochondrial function. See the research tab of the Thor Laser site if you want actual research supporting this claim -- THOR Low Level Laser Therapy LLLT Products and Training | Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) news. I would assume the rest of the wavelength bands are decently useful so long as the dosage recommendations are obeyed:

With this light pressed directly to the body, the following application times give an ideal light therapy dose (1-6J/cm²) in that area:

Skin – 20 seconds
Hair – 30 seconds
Fat – 160 seconds
Thyroid – 250 seconds
Muscles – 260 seconds
Brain – 300 seconds​

-----

Quick Note on Stress

I say EMF is a stressor. Yes, it is a big stressor, and often times an unknown stressor. But it is still a generic stressor.

If you are a total stud like Jocko Willink, genetically blessed with amazing mitochondria, and able run through the rigours of being a SEAL, and still pounding himself with a crazy sleep and workout schedule (bed at 11pm, wake at 4:30am, hit the gym), then your stress threshold is incredibly high.

Someone like him has a huge "Stress Budget" to spend before running into (literal) energetic debt. I think EMFs really don't faze this man :borg:

jocko-marine.jpg


Someone like me, who breaks down so easily, has to be much more careful. (To be fair, I did work 14 hour days for 3 years from ages 18-21 before everything completely fell apart)

Incidentally, light cycles affected me the most, moving to where I am now, where there are consistent light cycles between seasons, has proven to be the most important fix.

This will be different for each person, I cannot explain how :bag:. Some people will be more sensitive to EMF, some to mould toxins, some to various changes in humidity, etc ... Eliminate your own specific poisons.

About the only common resiliency fix is to keep your metabolism in check.

.....
 

misery guts

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
128
Thanks for that tyw, very informative. I'm trying to read through that thread from just before you go on the Kruse cruise. Really interesting stuff and I hope you'll still be around here to answer some more questions! :)
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
I love your posts @tyw !! I agree with you on sensible exposure, plus you avoid looking like a leathery raisin after years of sunbathing. Although that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, my grandpa is 93 still does a lot of things he enjoys doing like gardening and working in his shop building windmills, and he has leathery skin. (He also drinks well water.. I was wondering if you had posted any thoughts on EZ water?? I know someone who claims to have got healthy from red light and UV exposed water.)
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Natural sunshine in instinctive doses is really the boring and effective solution.
And most enjoyable. :)
 

Agent207

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2015
Messages
618
Power matters here. The common recommendation is at <0.5mG for ELF and <1.0mW/cm^2 for Radio EMF, and ideally lower. (The earth's field is comparatively very weak).

You were referring to magnetic fields and not electric fields?
 

NathanK

Member
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
684
Location
Austin, TX
In rat retinas, yes, red light works (see methods, white or red light exhibited the same dopamine response) -- Circadian rhythmicity in dopamine content of mammalian retina: role of the photoreceptors - Doyle - 2002 - Journal of Neurochemistry - Wiley Online Library

This is independent of the activity of the photopigment melanopsin (white fluorescent light used, which does not extend into the UV spectrum) -- Light regulation of retinal dopamine that is independent of melanopsin phototransduction

@m_arch I am not convinced that UV light is "required" for retinal dopamine response, but I do think that UV light, being the more powerful (energy per photon) frequency of light, causes a stronger circadian entrainment effect.

Some people focused on myopia improvement, like Jake Steiner (And Then There Was Science – endmyopia.org), observe faster vision correction during periods of the year with higher UV exposure. (Assuming that the proper corrective exercises and protocols are put in place).

Hair growth in summer is also higher, and we probably can assume that UV-driven circadian entrainment is part of the process.

Sidenote: Ray Peat seems to prefer more consistent solar cycles across the year, as opposed to large variations in winter vs summer day length. Personally, I chose to be boring and live in a sub-tropical region where "winter" means 11-hour days with the sun at a 72 deg noon altitude.​

As far as getting energy from the Sun, I don't buy that for 1 second ;) -- Take It Slow | Page 54 | Jack Kruse Optimal Health Forum

The link to the Kruse forum I just cited also explains why I cannot say that "UV light leads to Dopamine production" is true. The whole mechanism is tied to so many other circadian control systems, and all we can say is that dopamine is upregulated during the "Day portion" of the circadian cycle, and UV light is a strong entrainer of the circadian cycle (which is already an obvious point)

And yes, I am intimately familiar with Kruse's work, and I discourage almost all of his protocols (except non-native EMF avoidance and adherence to daily circadian cycles. those are good, the rest are dangerous)

All of the Quantum Mechanical explanations he rely on are false. (Read my other posts from about page 43 onward in the Kruse forum thread if you want to know the details ;) )​

As for UV light, again, it is light which is naturally present on Earth in significant amounts, and whereby the amount of energy in each photon is the greatest among the commonly available light on this planet.

IMO, its effects have everything to do with FORCING a response from the body :D This is exactly akin to the injury potential observed by people like Becker and Ling.

But what do you need to respond properly to this "stressor"? ;) Good energetics ..... if you cannot respond to a powerful signal, you will crumble under it.

UV light be powerful, and it should be approached with caution.

Artificial use of UV light is maybe warranted during long winter months where Seasonal Affective Disorder can kick in. We're talking like 5-10 mins in the morning, and that's it.

Whenever there's sunshine, it's probably a good idea to get some sun exposure. No sunblock please ;) but don't get a sunburn either. Fair skinned people probably only require something like 20 mins of sun exposure (or 10 mins if you're Irish ;) ) . Darker skinned people like me can probably afford more exposure.

Please do not sun gaze into anything other than the rising or setting sun when it's just about the horizon .... This is basically as much red light as possible. Do we need to sun gaze? Nope.

Do not buy into the UV light hype. I've seen much more cases of harm than good in the Kruse community over the last 2 years. Natural sunshine in instinctive doses is really the boring and effective solution.


.....
So ******* stoked that youre with the good guys now :thumbright :clap
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
You were referring to magnetic fields and not electric fields?

Well, Electromagnetic Fields basically encompass either ;) It just depends on what is the most uniform units for measurement that people commonly use.

You will tend to find readings in T (telsa) or G (gauss) for Extreme Low Frequency E/M fields, both in the research and in commercial measurement devices, and then units of mW/cm^2 (milli-watts per square centimeter) or other derived units for the radio wave frequency research and equipment.

It's just a matter of convenience and consistency of language. We're still measuring some absolute about of "power of the E/M field".

(And yes, I know that the Radio wave measure is power per unit area -- again, this is what the researchers use, and is what seems to be the most correlated with actual biological effects)


So ****ing stoked that youre with the good guys now :thumbright :clap

Eh, I don't imply that any past group I've been associated with are "Bad" :yawn: I just think that they're wrong about the facts :wtf:.

....
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Can higher melanin in the skin make someone get more Watts from the Sun?
 

misery guts

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
128
Whilst this has just been bumped, I'd really like to ask @tyw a quick question regarding microwaves and food. I'm guessing you would still count microwaves as a damaging nnemf to the whole organism, but I also remember Kruse saying that the effect on FOOD was also damaging (I believe the explanation was again couched in his take on quantum mechanics). Do you consider microwaved food unhealthy?
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Hey I think it can damage vitamins worse than just heat, and it changes water cluster size and also leaks radiation like six feet from the oven.
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Whilst this has just been bumped, I'd really like to ask @tyw a quick question regarding microwaves and food. I'm guessing you would still count microwaves as a damaging nnemf to the whole organism, but I also remember Kruse saying that the effect on FOOD was also damaging (I believe the explanation was again couched in his take on quantum mechanics). Do you consider microwaved food unhealthy?

There is zero certainty regarding whether or not the EMF from microwaves damage food ;)

I personally don't see any plausible mechanics regarding microwave exposure as being uniquely harmful to food, other than potentially for over-cooking (which is a risk with any cooking method, but could potentially be easier to achieve using a microwave)

I do not know of how it may damage other compounds in foods. I have a bias right now to say that damage is low because I do not see any compounds like flavanoids or vitamins absorbing in the microwave frequency band.

Heat damage may be more proximal to any compounds next to water though -- eg: microwave penetrates food deeper compared to surface cooking, leading to heat oxidation of more PUFAs within the food.

Some people would invoke the "microwave radiation destroys the structure of water" argument. I do not buy this mechanic, and see no difference even if the water were somehow "less structured" when consumed -- ie: production of EZ water within cells has nothing to do with the percentage of EZ water consumed. We make ATP to structure our own water ;) (see Gilbert Ling's AI hypothesis and books for details)

----

There is no doubt that the EMF emitted by the Microwave Ovens is harmful. This is usually not a microwave leak, but rather, the Extreme Low Frequency EMF that is below 1,000Hz that is emitted by whatever electronics are used to generate the microwaves.

At least, this is the finding that I found with my EMF meters with Australian-made microwaves, and that others have found in the US as well.

Can't say what a safe radius is, because the field is not uniform -- eg: some models will push the field behind the microwave, and have barely any "leak" on the side of the door. Testing with an EMF meter is required.

.....
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
There is zero certainty regarding whether or not the EMF from microwaves damage food ;)

I personally don't see any plausible mechanics regarding microwave exposure as being uniquely harmful to food, other than potentially for over-cooking (which is a risk with any cooking method, but could potentially be easier to achieve using a microwave)

I do not know of how it may damage other compounds in foods. I have a bias right now to say that damage is low because I do not see any compounds like flavanoids or vitamins absorbing in the microwave frequency band.

Heat damage may be more proximal to any compounds next to water though -- eg: microwave penetrates food deeper compared to surface cooking, leading to heat oxidation of more PUFAs within the food.

Some people would invoke the "microwave radiation destroys the structure of water" argument. I do not buy this mechanic, and see no difference even if the water were somehow "less structured" when consumed -- ie: production of EZ water within cells has nothing to do with the percentage of EZ water consumed. We make ATP to structure our own water ;) (see Gilbert Ling's AI hypothesis and books for details)

----

There is no doubt that the EMF emitted by the Microwave Ovens is harmful. This is usually not a microwave leak, but rather, the Extreme Low Frequency EMF that is below 1,000Hz that is emitted by whatever electronics are used to generate the microwaves.

At least, this is the finding that I found with my EMF meters with Australian-made microwaves, and that others have found in the US as well.

Can't say what a safe radius is, because the field is not uniform -- eg: some models will push the field behind the microwave, and have barely any "leak" on the side of the door. Testing with an EMF meter is required.

.....

But the structured water is a structural part of a cell... even if it's dead, as long as it's good enough to eat. Also, check for the microwave band leak, it is very intense.
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
But the structured water is a structural part of a cell... even if it's dead, as long as it's good enough to eat. Also, check for the microwave band leak, it is very intense.

Probably ;) I just dunno, and am not willing to make a claim that microwaved food is "bad for you".

Not as "energetically coherent" as non-microwaved food -- Likely.

Heavy EMF risk -- Definitely.

I do not like microwaves. I do not own one :oldman:

....
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom