You may have heard about, or already using, blue light blocking computer glasses. They're glasses with an amber tint to the lens that filters the blue light from screens.
Why wear these? Blue light is what disrupts our melatonin production (making it hard to fall asleep at night), gives off the wrong circadian rhythm cycle messages in our eyes, and creates a lot of the eye strain from staring at screens. There are all sorts of studies on this, but Harvard has a good simple, fast article about it.
I can't use my phone or computer for long without wearing these glasses. It doesn't take more than a few minutes for me to start squinting, getting red eyes, tears start producing... and before I know it the dreaded screen headache. It was never that bad for me until recent years, after developing these illnesses. I used to stare at a computer for hours and hours during my teens and early 20's without much complaint. I'm a gamer, what can I say? But now I have to use screens in small doses or wear my computer glasses.
For a few years I've been wearing a pair made by Gamma-Ray, which I bought on Amazon. This particular pair isn't sold anymore, but the brand is pretty much the same, you just choose the frames you like.
They help a lot, and I've relied on them. They've served me well. But I was never entirely happy with how easily they smudge, and how hard it is to clean the lenses. I often just put up with feeling like I have a film on the lens. I've also been unhappy with how they're flat, letting light in from the sides. If I'm near LED lights (which also affect my vision like screens do, so be cautious about putting them into your home if you're light sensitive), the light from them hits my eyes from the sides. Most of the time this isn't a problem.
But I started to question if other brands really were making computer glasses better. There are a couple name brand companies that claim to do it best. Gunnar and TrueDark (Bulletproof's Dave Asprey supports the TrueDark brand) both are the elite brands, and both offer glasses with curved lenses to protect the sides of your eyes too.
I found a pair of Gunnar glasses on discount, so I decided to buy it and try it out. I bought the Blizzard Heroes of the Storm (video game) themed glasses, lol. Gunnar makes glasses for specific video games. Anyway, they have larger lenses than my other pair, and they are curved. Also, the frame is very thin, and my hope was that I wouldn't be looking at the frame in my peripheral vision like I do with my Gamma Ray glasses.
They're ugly as sin on me! 😀 lol
But that doesn't matter so much. For a pair of glasses that was originally around $80, I'm actually not impressed.
First of all, the frames feel cheap, like a toy. I worry that they'll be easy to break.
Secondly, yes, they are curved lenses, but not as much as I expected. They do offer a slight advantage in width over the Gamma Ray glasses, and I do get more eye protection. But not as much as I was hoping for. The problem is that the curvature makes me really dizzy! If I'm looking straight ahead at the screen there is no problem, but I cannot walk around with them on. They give me vertigo like nothing else does!
Thirdly, the lenses truly are better. There is a noticeable difference between the Gamma Ray lenses vs these Gunnar lenses. Gunnar is known for having the best lenses, and I understand why now. It's like I'm not looking through a lens at all. They're very clear, and I don't see the frames in my peripherals. They definitely block out the blue light. It doesn't look like there is an amber hue while I'm wearing them, but the screen looks very purple to me when I take them off. They simply do work better for me, even though the Gamma Ray glasses are more comfortable and don't make me dizzy.
Gunnar:
Gamma Ray:
Can you see the difference?
I was happy with the Gamma Ray for years. They do work, they significantly cut down on eye strain and redness. But the Gunnar filter better. I don't see the amber color when I'm wearing them, my screen still looks white. It just doesn't look as glaring, bright, and shiny.
Ideally I'd rather have a pair of Gunnar glasses that have all the features I like without the way the lenses are curved to make me so dizzy. I'd also love a pair that isn't black and has a more feminine shape. I'm asking for too much, aren't I? Sigh.
I have been extra unwell this month, but I have several things I want to write about before I forget to. After all, this blog is to help me chart my progress as much as it is to help you, my readers, find your own path based on my experiences.
I decided to buy a few things for Black Friday, one of them being the Fitbit Alta HR 2. This review will look at it not for fitness or athletic reasons, but almost strictly for how well it helps keep track of heart rate issues.
The reason I, as a person diagnosed with POTS and Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia, have been so hesitant to even bother investing in a tracking device is because they simply haven't been good enough. They're still not good enough. The new Apple watch might be good enough from what other people have told me, but I really don't want to buy any Apple phone or PCs or tablets to pair it to. What I mean by "good enough" is that they are not accurate enough measuring HR on the wrist (a chest strap is still the most accurate), but also that they don't record HR often enough and miss when the HR spikes. I also am getting really burned out on this whole chronic illness problem I have, so the constant reminder that I have problems isn't the best for my mental health. The problem is, I was constantly reminded I have health problems even without wearing a tracker, so is there really a difference if I wear one? Maybe it's more fun for me to see and track details about my problems as they come up?
I decided to go with the Alta HR 2 for one main reason (other than the major sale price): it will take continuous heart rate measurements. Most trackers only track while you're working out, if you put it in work out mode, and capture your heart rate every 5 minutes or so. This one will show me my current HR every time I look at the Fitbit itself. I did have to program it to be in "continuous" mode, it doesn't automatically do that, but it works fairly well.
I've used this for a couple of weeks now. It already revealed something that I've learned from my Oura Ring, except that the Oura only measures HR at night. This is measures through the day.
I was in PMS when I first started to wear the Fitbit. It showed that my average resting heart rate was around 80 during PMS. I started my period on Sunday, December 9th. See the difference after that day? My average resting HR went down to the lower to mid 70's. My Oura Ring is still much better for using HR to track my period because it's measuring HR only at night, when I'm still. Going to work having an active day doesn't factor in to affect my lowest heart rate. My Oura also gives other good tracking info for my period, like body temp and respiration rate changes. If you're looking for the better tool to track your period with, I'd recommend the Oura Ring over Fitbit.
The green in the HR chart is when my heart rate is normal. When my HR is above 94 bpm it turns yellow, which is the "fat burn zone." I have to laugh really hard at the fact that I'm often in "fat burn" for 5 or more hours every day... and I have fat to burn on my body! I'll show more details about this in the next photos. With this weekly chart view alone I can see that I have tachycardia problems. If I wanted to, I could change the fat burn zone to start at 100 bpm, and then all the yellow would only show when I'm in tachycardia. The medical definition is that a normal resting heart rate is 60-99 bpm. But if you're just sitting on the couch listening to relaxing music and your heart rate is 94-99, don't you think that's too high? That's why I'm leaving it set at the default 94 bpm. I definitely feel like my heart is working out at 94 bpm.
So, is this Fitbit helpful for POTS? (POTS being an increase of 30 bpm or more when going from sitting to standing.) I'll show you in photos why it's only mildly helpful, and why I wouldn't insist any POTS patient go out and buy one.
Here is a day when I was very symptomatic.
The problem is that each point on this chart is about 5 minutes apart. I watched as my screen on the Fitbit showed 150's and 160's, but those numbers don't show up here in the app. It's because when I peak, I only stay at that high HR for maybe a minute or two at the most. Not long enough for the Fitbit app to record it. It happened to catch that I was near 130 in the evening, but what if that peak was actually in the 150's? So yes, the app shows that something wacky is going on, but there are not nearly enough details to actually use the information. If I were to want to use this information medically, I could not. It might be enough to convince a doctor to prescribe a heart rate monitor, like the Zio Patch I already wore for 2 weeks.
But let me show you the day when I felt the most normal/ healthy since wearing my Fitbit.
I did not work on this day, and I was very restful all day. It's a big contrast to the last day I showed you where I was very symptomatic. The data can give a decent overview of which days are better than others, as long as you're not trying to rely on the finer, often more important, details.
What I'm finding is that the most helpful feature, by far, is being able to simply look at the screen and see my HR. I've compared its readings to my pulse oxygen meter's readings, and they're almost always the same.
Most of the time. When I'm symptomatic or my HR is changing too quickly it just shows me a few dash lines instead of a number. There have been plenty of times when I wanted to know where my HR was, but it couldn't read it. My pulse oxygen meter has the same problem - I can't trust that it will actually pick up a reading either.
As far as using the Fitbit for steps, food tracking, water logging, period tracking... that's not really what I'm using it for. I greatly prefer Clue for period tracking, and the feature on Fitbit is very irritating for someone who is not regular. I check my steps, but it really doesn't mean much to me. I learned what I wanted to from my steps with my Flex 2. At this point, the only thing step tracking is good for in my case is with the Achievemint app. If I were trying to get more physically fit I would use the feature, but I don't have the energy. Food tracking and water logging? Hahaha, you really think I'm going to take the energy? I don't believe in counting calories. I believe in eating the right foods at the right times, and I'm already doing that.
As for sleep tracking? I'll analyze that against my Oura Ring later. I'm curious, but honestly I've been struggling way to much to have the energy to compare the two devices. This Fitbit does show all the same sleep stages that the Oura Ring does, but the technology is different, and I would be surprised if the Fitbit were accurate. The Oura Ring is only about 65% accurate (according to the Oura Ring user's group I joined on Facebook), and it specializes in sleep tracking.
One big problem I had right away, that I was able to change, was the band. The original silicone band that came with the Fitbit gave me eczema. This surprises me, because I used to wear a Fitbit Flex 2 for about 2 years. That silicone band did not cause a reaction with my skin. I went on Amazon and bought a pink genuine leather replacement band for $6. With my MCS issues you'd think that a dyed leather band would be more problematic for me, but nope, I've had no issues with it so far this week.
And if you're not concerned about the EMF radiation, the fact that I can read text messages on my Fitbit is pretty handy! I also like actually having a clock on my wrist too. It's a massive upgrade from the Flex 2 I was wearing. That said, I would prefer to keep my EMF exposure as limited as possible, while still actually using technology. I keep my Oura Ring in airplane mode for that reason. I could do the same for the Fitbit, but right now I'm using the "all day sync" feature.
In conclusion:
If you have the money to spend, yes, it's useful and might even be helpful, if you're not relying on accuracy. If you're tight on cash, don't worry. I don't think a monitoring device like this is essential for mild to moderate POTS patients.
