zlacker

>>ivank+(OP)
A recent Cochrane review found very little high quality evidence in either direction:

http://www.cochrane.org/CD011269/DEPRESSN_light-therapy-prev...

It's not clear to me why light therapy is considered as a well-researched treatment.

>>sambe+Ad1
From the review, they found 2986 unique papers on the subject, they then assessed 91 papers from the 2986. From these 91, only 1 had a rigorous double blind testing but on only 46 people. The exposures for the light source was 2500 lux, IR light and no special treatment. The results were not significant.

So, lot-researched but maybe not well-enough researched.

>>Loic+cg1
How do you go about blinding a study which does or does not shine a bright light in subject's faces?

>>bradle+gh1
I'm guessing you vary the intensity and spectrum of the light. If the treatment doesn't show a dose-response curve of some kind, then it probably just doesn't work.

Standard academic disclaimer applies: This isn't my field of study, and I'm sure there are many subtle mistakes in what I just said.

>>Menger+Jh1
A quick Google confirms this: they use either an identical-looking light with a different response, or a different light altogether. "Here's a light, here's a sugar pill, log your mood please..."

As silly as that all sounds, it's already a million times better than what this guy did. He took the "if a little is ineffective a LOT will be better" approach and built a damn lighthouse in his living room. And if the goal is a DIY project and a blog post, OF COURSE you'll feel better after "your treatment." It's approaching group therapy at that point. There's a lot of this crap on HN lately.

>>tacos+fi1
So, it's crap that he's done something that made him feel better. Yea.

It's not science. And yes, he very well might feel better just be because he did something he believes in. But I don't see why that warrants a response like yours.

>>anaraz+Ll1
The article is entitled "You need more lumens" so he's already confronting me. The first paragraph disparages all existing commercial products and states, matter-of-factly that his approach is the one true way. The second paragraph states "Clinical studies have found that bright light treats SAD effectively" which is also a stretch.

The article contains no research or sources except for a single Wikipedia link. It contains much hubris, yet no author's name. It does however contain numerous affiliate links. The article warrants a response like mine because the article is bullshit.

>>tacos+un1
The article is entitled "You need more lumens" so he's already confronting me.

In informal English there is no accepted equivalent to the third-person pronoun "one", so people reuse the second-person pronoun "you".