Abstract: Life evolved under broad spectrum sunlight, from ultraviolet to infrared (300–2500 nm). This spectrally balanced light sculpted life’s physiology and metabolism. But modern lighting has recently become dominated by restricted spectrum light emitting diodes (350–650 nm LEDs). Absence of longer wavelengths in LEDs and their short wavelength dominance impacts physiology, undermining normal mitochondrial respiration that regulates metabolism, disease and ageing. Mitochondria are light sensitive. The 420–450 nm dominant in LEDs suppresses respiration while deep red/infrared (670–900 nm) increases respiration in aging and some diseases including in blood sugar regulation. Here we supplement LED light with broad spectrum lighting (400–1500 nm+) for 2 weeks and test colour contrast sensitivity. We show significant improvement in this metric that last for 2 months after the supplemental lighting is removed. Mitochondria communicate across the body with systemic impacts following regional light exposure. This likely involves shifting patterns of serum cytokine expression, raising the possibility of wider negative impacts of LEDs on human health particularly, in the elderly or in the clinical environment where individuals are debilitated. Changing the lighting in these environments could be a highly economic route to improved public health.
Skimmed the first bit and they seem to site most claims in the introduction--they don't cite anything in the abstract but you aren't supposed to, it shouldn't have any information that isn't found in the main text.
Also, my understanding is the light effect isn't to do with optical effects but cellular-level effects absorbed through surface membranes, which should be similar amongst animals.
The language is very odd though and does have either major typos or very very stylized and jargonistic phrasings, which make it hard to read.