The influence of bright and dim light on substrate metabolism, energy expenditure and thermoregulation in insulin-resistant individuals depends on time of day

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: In our modern society, artificial light is available around the clock and most people expose themselves to electrical light and light-emissive screens during the dark period of the natural light/dark cycle. Such suboptimal lighting conditions have been associated with adverse metabolic effects, and redesigning indoor lighting conditions to mimic the natural light/dark cycle more closely holds promise to improve metabolic health. Our objective was to compare metabolic responses to lighting conditions that resemble the natural light/dark cycle in contrast to suboptimal lighting in individuals at risk of developing metabolic diseases. METHODS: Therefore, we here performed a non-blinded, randomised, controlled, crossover trial in which overweight insulin-resistant volunteers (n = 14) were exposed to two 40 h laboratory sessions with different 24 h lighting protocols while staying in a metabolic chamber under real-life conditions. In the Bright day–Dim evening condition, volunteers were exposed to electric bright light (~1250 lx) during the daytime (08:00–18:00 h) and to dim light (~5 lx) during the evening (18:00–23:00 h). Vice versa, in the Dim day–Bright evening condition, volunteers were exposed to dim light during the daytime and bright light during the evening. Randomisation and allocation to light conditions were carried out by sequential numbering. During both lighting protocols, we performed 24 h indirect calorimetry, and continuous core body and skin temperature measurements, and took frequent blood samples. The primary outcome was plasma glucose focusing on the pre- and postprandial periods of the intervention. RESULTS: Spending the day in bright light resulted in a greater increase in postprandial triacylglycerol levels following breakfast, but lower glucose levels preceding the dinner meal at 18:00 h, compared with dim light (5.0 ± 0.2 vs 5.2 ± 0.2 mmol/l, n = 13, p=0.02). Dim day–Bright evening reduced the increase in postprandial glucose after dinner compared with Bright day–Dim evening (incremental AUC: 307 ± 55 vs 394 ± 66 mmol/l × min, n = 13, p=0.009). After the Bright day–Dim evening condition the sleeping metabolic rate was identical compared with the baseline night, whereas it dropped after Dim day–Bright evening. Melatonin secretion in the evening was strongly suppressed for Dim day–Bright evening but not for Bright day–Dim evening. Distal skin temperature for Bright day–Dim evening was lower at 18:00 h (28.8 ± 0.3°C vs 29.9 ± 0.4°C, n = 13, p=0.039) and higher at 23:00 h compared with Dim day–Bright evening (30.1 ± 0.3°C vs 28.8 ± 0.3°C, n = 13, p=0.006). Fasting and postprandial plasma insulin levels and the respiratory exchange ratio were not different between the two lighting protocols at any time. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Together, these findings suggest that the indoor light environment modulates postprandial substrate handling, energy expenditure and thermoregulation of insulin-resistant volunteers in a time-of-day-dependent manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03829982. FUNDING: We acknowledge the financial support from the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative: an initiative with support from the Dutch Heart Foundation (CVON2014–02 ENERGISE). GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains peer-reviewed but unedited supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00125-021-05643-9

Personal comfort systems and cognitive performance: Effects on subjective measures, cognitive performance, and heart rate measures

Personal comfort systems (PCS) that warm or cool local body parts promise individual thermal comfort, energy saving and (metabolic) health in non-neutral thermal environments. However, research on work performance while using a PCS is scarce. We previously tested a PCS that warms the extremities and cools the head and reported that the PCS improved thermal comfort during a ramp of 17-23˚C but did not at a stable temperature of 25˚C. In the current study, its effects on cognitive performance, subjective measures and task-induced heart rate measures are investigated. Eighteen participants completed two randomized, eight-hour-long dynamic office scenarios: one is PCS scenario and another one is without PCS scenario. The results show warming the extremities slightly slowed reaction time for a simple task at 19˚C (p < 0.05) whereas it exerted no effect on complex task performance in 17-21˚C. At 25˚C however, cooling the head improved complex task performance (p = 0.053), which derived from participants’ effort increase, whereas it did not affect simple task performance. These findings suggest that the PCS’ effects on cognitive performance depended on the task type. Cooling the head, independent from its influence on thermal comfort, plays a significant role in complex cognitive performance in slightly warm conditions