Would be interesting to compare sunlight and artificial light in future studies. |
Bright (>4000 lux), preferable blue (at least having a blue component) light has repeatedly been shown to increase athletic performance. Studies like Kantermann et al. (2012) show, however, that the efficacy of bright light exposure significantly depends on the chronotype of an athlete.
Learn more about the health effects of correct / messed up circadian rhythms
Back in the day, Kantermann et al. speculated that a short(er) exposure or mudaltion of light intensity and/or timing could likewise have affected their results. Thus, the hypothesis Knaier et al. used in their 2015 contribution to the "light for performance" research was to that different bright light (BL) exposure regimes prior to and during a time-trial applied during the “sensitive” phase of the circadian rhythm result in a dose dependent increase of time-trial power output - meaning: longer exposure and brighter light = maximal performance benefits.
To test this hypothesis the scientists assigned young (25.1 ± 3.1 years) men to three groups with two different light intensities (A = BL, 4420 lx vs. B = ML, 230 lx) for all three randomly chosen exposure times (2h pre + exercise time, 2HEX | 1h pre + exercise time 1HEX | 1h pre 1H).
Figure 2: Total work (in kJ) during the 40-minute time-trial to exhaustion (Knaier. 2015). |
- Total work performed during the time-trial in kJ in the 2HEX group was significantly higher in the BL setting (527 kJ) than in ML (512 kJ) (P = 0.002), but not in 1HEX (BL: 485 kJ; ML: 498 kJ) or 1H (BL: 519 kJ; ML: 514 kJ) (P = 0.770; P = 0.485).
- There was a significant (P = 0.006) positive dose–response relationship between the duration of light exposure and the work performed over the three doses of light exposure.
Whether and to which extent the "more light equals more performance" equation will hold with (a) even longer or (b) even more intense light, however, is something that will have to be investigated in future dose-response studies. Studies like O'Brien et al. (2000) which has already proven that shortening the exposure time (in this case to 20 minutes only during exercise) will reduce the effects of bright light exposure on cycling performance to zero.
Bottom line: While one hour of bright or 2h of medium intensity light appears to allow for too little 'light accumulation' to have physiologically relevant affects, long duration of exposure to bright light is, as Knaier et al. point out "an effective tool to increase total work at least for the initial phase of a medium length time-trial" (Knaier. 2015); and what's important, the performance increase of ~8% which was observed not just in the Knaier study, but also in a differently designed trial by Thomson, et al. (2015 | cf. Figure 3), is large enough to be relevant for any competing athlete.
Comment on Facebook!
References: Comment on Facebook!
- Kantermann, Thomas, et al. "The stimulating effect of bright light on physical performance depends on internal time." PloS one 7.7 (2012): e40655.
- Knaier, R., et al. "Dose–response relationship between light exposure and cycling performance." Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports (2015).
- Nelson, Arnold G., Joke Kokkonen, and Megan Mickenberg. "Acute short-term dim light exposure can lower muscle strength endurance." Journal of Sport and Health Science 4.3 (2015): 270-274.
- O'Brien, Patrick M., and Patrick J. O'Conner. "Effect of bright light on cycling performance." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (2000).
- Thompson, A., et al. "The effects of evening bright light exposure on subsequent morning exercise performance." International journal of sports medicine 36.02 (2015): 101-106.