Andrew Huberman· PhD
The theory now is that longer wavelengths of light specifically from sunlight restore membrane potential in your mitochondria, whereas shorter wavelengths of light (such as from LEDs) reduce it.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
The theory now is that longer wavelengths of light specifically from sunlight restore membrane potential in your mitochondria, whereas shorter wavelengths of light (such as from LEDs) reduce it.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So I realize that we're framing long wavelengths as great and short wavelengths as bad. But like so many things in biology, it seems that it it may just be the balance that's important and that long wavelengths can have this um kind of protective effect to some extent.
Um the the balance between these wavelengths is really what's key. And LEDs are just shifting the balance very heavily to short wavelengths.
It may not be that short wavelength light is detrimental to mitochondria per se. It's that in the absence of balanced light, you're you're taking whatever mechanisms that short wavelength light have on mitochondria and you're you're tipping the seesaw in that direction and the other side of the seessaw would be weighted by long wavelength light.