Honestly, if this wasn’t coming from a reputable magazine I would think this is pseudoscience. The benefits of narrow band UV exposure sound too good to be true.
I personally believe that CONTROLLED outdoor exposure - early or late in the day, NEVER EXPOSE FACE, NECK or HANDS and limited time based on your location and time of the day and year can reap huge benefits in boosting mood, setting circadian rhythm, provide red and infrared for mitochondrial boost, UV for Vitamin D and other compound formation and apparently reduction in inflammation. Moreover there may be other yet to be discovered benefits.
Far from new
In 1903 Auguste Rollier, a Medical Doctor started his first clinics
One of many, a posting about his treatments.Search you will located many more.
“In 1855, Rikli, a Swiss doctor, opened a thermal treatment station in Slovenia. In 1903, Finsen was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for successful treatment of cutaneous TB (lupus vulgaris) with ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and this marked the start of modern phototherapy. Rollier from Switzerland opened a hospital to treat TB by using graded sun exposure in 1903. In 1922, popularity of sunlight treatment was increased and “Committee on Sunlight” and Light Department was established in the UK at London Hospital to widespread adoption of sun exposure practices (Roelandts, 2002).”
The UV lamps are amazing for mental health among many other things. I have 3 now because they’re so short I need 3 to cover my whole body. Expensive but I hate standing there for long times. My experience makes me believe the article. Actually I used to thing SciAm was an amazing magazine, but have seen plenty of pseudo stuff in there lately.
I used to be in the anti-sun, anti-UV camp —sun glasses, SPF. But diving into Jack Kruse’s work shifted my thinking.
He makes a case that narrow-band UVB isn’t just about vitamin D—it triggers POMC, which gives rise to endorphins, melanocyte-stimulating hormone, and ACTH. That means mood, pigmentation (hair and skin), inflammation, and appetite are being influenced by sunlight—specifically UV.
These days, I don’t mind midday light but I keep it short—or wear a cap with a hole at the top so the crown gets exposure while my face stays covered.
I’ve shifted to a more intentional approach: short bursts of morning sun (5–10 mins) and midday (30–60 mins), and the changes have been—tighter circadian alignment, much better sleep & REM…
Lots of people with controversial or new, fringe, ideas, very little energy or time for anyone to investigate it thoroughly especially without expertise in the field. Usually fringe ideas that flip the mainstream view, i.e contrarian and fringe ideas are just totally wrong.
I’m not sure the trade off here is worth it for the purported benefits. There are plenty of ways to reduce inflammation without adding accelerated skin aging and cancer risk, for example.
How are you certain to get the correct narrow(!) UV band from the spectrum, rather than the melanoma inducing frequencies? Do these lamps come with a certificate showing the spectral output? Got a link or so?
or you cound take a minute to consider what “narrow band UVB” means
So, everybody, let’s discuss the actual light recommended, i.e. how much melanoma are still an issue without UVC or higher energy UVB, and if that is settled, then how to ensure we apply those frequencies, how to trust/check the data of the bulb manufacturer,…
Actually the youtube above from Joseph shows the output from several bulbs and they are the ones used. It’s a pretty mature technology. I like Sperti because it’s the standard that is usually used for studies like this. Pretty sure it was designed by Michael Holick and he gets money from it. It’s more expensive than it should be. He also did work on why lizards in captivity died and used the bulbs to save them. Watch the video. Read the article. This is a great solution.
Just a sanity check. Sci Ame used to be a reputable magazine, maybe in early 2000s. It went downhill sometime later. I stopped subscribing it to it a long time ago, and don’t consider it more than low-fi pop science at this point.
I didnt read the SciAm article but here is the paradox.
UV exposure is established to cause Lupus flares.
However, vitamin D deficiency is linked to higher lupus disease activity, and supplementation may help reduce disease activity and fatigue in some patients. Some studies show beneficial immunological effects of Viatmin D—such as increased regulatory T cells and decreased inflammatory markers.
May be narrow band light in Goldilocks zone holds the key
Considering that humanity has evolved with the sun and has been exposed to sunlight regularly for millions of years, it’s quite hard for me to believe that we should avoid it at all times. There’s no doubt that, in moderate doses, sunlight has significant health benefits. It’s not just Vitamin D – sunlight also upregulates nitric oxide (important for cardiovascular health), dopamine, and likely many other things that we are yet unaware of. Consider that a Swedish study on sun exposure found that avoiding the sun increased all-cause mortality.
Now, for sure, you want to avoid sunburn, but I strongly believe that much of the risk associated with sun exposure is really excessive sun exposure + ultraprocessed foods increasing the risk of various cancers.
