Infrared light is gaining attention as a critical factor in lighting and human health. At the National Lighting Bureau‘s (NLB) Annual Lighting Forum, industry experts challenged long-standing assumptions about LEDs and circadian lighting. The discussion signals a shift toward full-spectrum thinking and measurable biological outcomes.
Randy Reid moderated a panel with Scott Zimmerman of Silas, Jay Goodman with Après Illumination and Doug Steel of NeuroSense. The session focused on how light affects human biology beyond traditional circadian models. Panelists agreed the industry must rethink how it defines “good” lighting.
Beyond Circadian Lighting
For years, lighting has centered on blue light and circadian rhythms. That framework is now evolving. Doug explained that light influences mood, stress, and cognitive performance, not just sleep cycles.
Recent research suggests the issue is not simply blue light at night. Instead, content exposure—especially social media—may play a larger role in sleep disruption. This distinction matters for designers specifying lighting in residential and commercial environments.
The takeaway is clear. Lighting impacts multiple biological systems, and the industry must broaden its approach.
The Role of Infrared
Scott emphasized that sunlight contains a wide spectrum, including significant infrared energy. Most LED systems exclude these wavelengths. Historically, infrared was dismissed as heat, not light.
New research challenges that assumption. Infrared appears to align with biological processes at the cellular level. Early studies suggest it may support visual performance and overall eye health.
Scott cited findings showing reduced color contrast perception in LED-only environments. While more validation is needed, the implication is significant. Removing infrared may introduce unintended consequences.
Rethinking Metrics and Priorities
Jay argued that the industry has overemphasized energy efficiency. Metrics like lumens per watt dominate decision-making. However, infrared energy does not produce visible lumens, which penalizes full-spectrum solutions. He referenced the “3-30-300” rule. Energy represents only a small portion of building costs. The largest cost is people. Even minor improvements in health, productivity, or well-being can outweigh energy savings.
This shift reframes value. Lighting should be evaluated on human outcomes, not just efficiency metrics.
Practical Steps for Designers
Panelists offered immediate actions for lighting professionals. First, increase exposure to natural daylight, especially in the morning. Even 20 minutes can improve sleep and daytime performance.
Second, explore advanced LED systems. Multi-channel fixtures, such as RGB tunable white solutions, allow designers to adjust spectral output. These systems can influence mood and perception, even without full infrared integration.
Hybrid solutions are also emerging. Combining LED with incandescent sources can restore portions of the infrared spectrum. While not perfect, these approaches move closer to natural light conditions.
Barriers to Adoption
Challenges remain. Adding infrared requires more energy, which conflicts with current efficiency standards. Cost and code requirements also limit adoption. Scientific validation is another hurdle. Large-scale clinical studies take time and investment. The industry needs to balance urgency with evidence.
What Comes Next
The panel agreed that change will come gradually. Adoption may begin in niche applications such as healthcare and senior living. These environments can directly benefit from improved lighting quality.
Over time, broader acceptance will follow. As research expands, the case for full-spectrum lighting will strengthen.
The message from the forum was clear. Infrared light health effects are real, measurable, and increasingly relevant. The lighting industry now faces a choice—continue optimizing for efficiency or begin designing for human health.