There are more than 1000 similar papers on red and near infrared. All pointing to its impact on mitochondria. Near Infrared (NIR) penetrates few cm, leading to its mitochondrial impact in muscle cells too.
A family member of mine is involved in research into using red/NIR light to improve brain injuries outcomes. Apparently it can also irradiate passing blood which then circulates with the same mitochondrial clean up signals, so it has some secondary effects on non-penetrated areas.
I got to try a prototype LED helmet that blasts 90 watts of lensed, circumspaced NIR beams through the skull for 4 minutes. I can say that an hour later it leaves me feeling mildly buzzed. The main effect I can identify is a mild and general sense of stamina/energy. I used it before/after an all-nighter and didn't feel as impacted as I should have; analogous to how you feel the next morning after drinking at age 20 vs. age 30. All anecdotal of course.
They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
I have so many questions about both apparatuses. 90W input or irradiated? Pulse width modulated/dimmed? Lasers? LEDs? 850nm? 830nm? 810nm?
For the panel, 1800W is a LOT of power to put through 2 feet. Is it actually 1800W? What wavelengths? PWM?
I've been using a NIR belt flipped inside out on my pillow the last few weeks. It's only 6W of 850nm, but I've been feeling less dumb recently. Not sure if it's correlated, but until I settle it for sure, I'm going to keep on using it.
The prototype came with a power supply that is set at 24V, 5A and consumes 90W when running. Not sure how the control circuits work but its pretty simply operated with a 3P2T switch for 650nm/Off/850nm. Each module contains a fan cooled array of LEDs behind a plastic lens. I think it has some thermal shut off protection circuit as well.
I just dug out the spec sheet for the other device and you're right. It says "LED Power Class 1800W", but lists power consumption as 350W.
I really like it's potential to improve the right kind of symptoms when applied correctly and I'm also wary of people with bottom line incentives filling in any scientific uncertainty with miracle cures. But I agree, it's definitely worth using. It's a one time purchase with no side effects, so the worst case risk is just disappointment.
It would probably be 1800W continuously but is pulsed and the duty cycle probably limits the power to 350W.
infrared, yes. Although depends on skin colour wrapping the skull. Melanin absorbs everything under the sun. It has very high absorption of UV but somewhat absorbs infrared too in this range of frequencies. Darker the color of skin, higher the melanin and higher the absorption by skin.
Yes
Light is anything in the spectrum visible to people, with the exception of infrared being called light. What evidence do you have that this is true?
Not wanting to violate the "don't tell people to google the obvious, no matter how condescending they're being", I googled the obvious for you.
Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a near-infrared (NIR) light-based therapy technique and has shown therapeutic effectiveness for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including MDD. The transcranial PBM (t-PBM) technique delivers NIR light through the scalp and skull.
Near-infrared spectroscopy in the brain is made possible by the relative transparency of biological tissues (including bone) to light for infrared wavelengths ranging from 650 to 925 nm.
Penetration of light from an 820 nm gallium-aluminum-arsenium laser diode through a sample of fresh human skin. Data extrapolated from data presented in Kolari (25) and shown in the blue columns. A line of regression is shown by the black dotted line. The regression line indicates that light from a low-power laser diode can penetrate less than 2.2 mm into human skin.
This says that a 820nm laser penetrate 2.2mm into human skin. That is 0.08 inches. That is about the width of a groove on the top of your finger. How does that square with saying that it could go through skull bone that is 3.5x as thick while being more dense than tissue?
I assume you had a cut-n-paste failure with that link. I think you meant https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3..., which I assume you picked because the title. It is an interesting article, should you ever decide to read it beyond cherry picking the caption from 'Figure 2'. But TL;DR: It doesn't say what you apparently think it says. The author is questioning the therapeutic value of low power infrared light therapy, and demonstrating what is required for medical effect. He is not questioning whether or not infrared light can penetrate skin and bone, because it does. For example:
We have demonstrated that our multi-watt NIR data delivers an estimated 1.65–3.7 J/cm2 to a depth of 30 mm. As shown above, this is within the biologically meaningful fluence range (1, 2, 4, 6, 47) and is more than 100-fold greater than the fluence delivered by an LED system or by a low-power infrared light system according to the findings of the authors cited above (7, 18, 21, 37, 38, 48).
and
Patients receiving 10–20 treatments of multi-watt infrared light, each lasting approximately 20–30 min, have experienced significant, and often, dramatic improvements (47, 48). The fluence of combined 810 and 980 nm light delivered during each of these treatments was, on average, 81 J/cm2/treatment. Correcting for forehead skin, skull, and 1 cm of brain tissue, this delivered a fluence of fluence of 0.41 J/cm2 to the neurons 1 cm below the cortical surface.
NIR in the power range of 10–15 W at 810 and 980 nm can provide fluence within the range shown to be biologically beneficial at 3 cm depth. You can't ELI5 more than that.
Understanding does take work, and given your posting history of mostly low effort negative snark, I probably spent more time than I should have. But it was an interesting diversion into something I otherwise wouldn't have known.
skepticism without homework is stupidity. The above snark demonstrates effectively.
You didn't confront what I said and just switched goal posts to talking about "effectiveness".
Now, the skin of the forehead overlying a portion of the frontal lobes is approximately 2 mm thick. It is possible that tiny amounts of infrared light from lower powered emitters could penetrate the forehead skin; however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin. Nevertheless, the remainder of the scalp, over which hoods, helmets, and posteriorly placed LED pads are emitting low-power light, is an average of 5.1–5.8 mm thick.
Simply put, it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head if the light energy from that LED cannot penetrate through human skin further than 3 mm. The energy of low-power devices simply will not penetrate the thickness of the scalp overlying much of the skull.
Some have suggested that NIR energy from low-power devices penetrates deeper if longer exposure times are used. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles that scatter, absorption, and refraction play in degrading NIR energy as it passes through tissue.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue – often several cm below the surface.
Longer exposure times will simply pump more energy into the epidermis and dermis of the skin/scalp.
Longer exposure times do not yield deeper penetration. These limitations on penetration only take into consideration the skin and scalp; however, the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light, because people can't see it (and possibly no animals can). If you drop the frequency enough something will get through (a tiny percent) and if you keep calling it light then you can make the false claim that light passes through bone, when we know that isn't true because we can see bones and they aren't transparent. We could say radio waves pass though people too and therefore light goes right though people.
Simply put
The siren cry of ignorance everywhere.
however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin.
Yes. The study discusses this. Its why the researchers moved to more powerful sources. To provide the results you refuse to read. Which I explicitly pointed out in my reply so you didn't have to worry about struggling with reading comprehension yourself. Which you ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.
it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head
Yes, that is what the researchers said. LEDs don't have enough power; they measured that. That's why they didn't use regular LEDs. And they measured that change. And gave you the parameters of their setup for you to check (well, not you...for people into facts and science and such). And cited the people who had similar results. And cited people who had different results. And other science things that people who actually read this stuff for comprehension appreciate. That you ignore.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue
Different...energy? Physics would like a word with you. But physics does expect you to have done your homework, so I'll let it know you won't be around any time soon. I told it to be nice, and remember not everyone has a high school level understanding of physics, and they might say silly things. Be excellent to each other and all that.
often several cm below the surface.
Yeah. How about 3cm? Like the researchers said. In their measurements. That they didn't guess at.
the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well
Yes. The researchers discuss skulls in detail. Not just people skulls...sheep skulls and mice skulls too. 3cm on people; all the way through in mice. Sheep somewhere between. And a lot about hands, but I don't figure you care about those. They wrote it down and it got published. After actually doing the science.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light
There it is! Ding ding! The audience watching at home knew this was coming.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!" a couple of exchanges back and moved on to easier targets with less annoying 'facts' and 'proof' and 'published works of science by experts' around for anyone who cared to check. I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium.
Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!"
I did mention this in my first reply, I don't know why you feel the need for this manic response.
I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium. Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
I don't understand where these insults are coming from. It doesn't seem like you're addressing that lower frequency EM that no animal can see isn't light. Saying "WTF and LOL" and trying to be patronizing doesn't confront what I posted.
You realize for most of your post you are replying to your own source right? I didn't write that, I took it from your link and put the most relevant stuff in italics. When you are quoting "Simply put" and replying: "The siren cry of ignorance everywhere." that's from your link, not me.
Radio waves do with no trouble. Blue does not at all. Everything between is on a sliding scale; there are no qualitative changes until you get to ionising radiation.
Though there’s a bit in the middle where it matches the resonant frequency of water molecules, yes.
> They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
I think the commercial model here is a tanning bed config with LED tubes. Goggles on, hop in the healing tube.
What is the distance of the LED from the scalp? I want to approximate the amount of irradiance (mW/squared area).
It sits right on the head with a ~1 inch foam spacer. The lens might change the fluence, which I think was a key part of the pending patent. Also 90W is the power draw for all the modules in the helmet. I can ask though what the targeted mW/area is and reply if I can get an answer.
I have a TBI which resulted in a number of chronic symptoms including decades of memory loss, although thankfully I retained my functional intelligence at least so I can keep working (although I still have many ongoing issues including atypical migraines leading to cyclic vomiting etc).
I have been exploring red light therapy using cheapo panels as well as fischer wallace devices (and have the OAK preordered via the IPO stock options), so I'm definitely trying out all the 'technologic approaches' since traditional medicine has been largely of no use (shout out to ondandestrone though, the best nausea suppresant I know of which can help fend off the migraince/vomiting episodes).
All that to say:
Is your friend interested in any more TBI test subjects? Happy to pay for the device assuming I can afford it and provide detailed notes to help with any studies; this sounds like exactly the type of thing I need to try next.
No worries if not, but figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
> I can ask though what the targeted mW/area is and reply if I can get an answer.
Please do.
whats the pulse frequency you use?
I mean, it is kinda quacky to treat someone with that until it's demonstrated by science. I'm open to the idea that light is an important regulator, but that effect should be easily observable if it's truly effective.
I'm no expert but my gist is that light interacts with an enzyme in the electron transport chain (cytochrome c oxidase). CCO is embedded in the inner membrane of mitochondria, and nitric oxide binds to CCO which temporarily inhibits cellular respiration as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress. Red and NIR light can photodissociate NO from CCO with the right intensity and wavelength, which restarts cellular respiration and ATP production. The release of NO into the bloodstream can secondarily trigger other chemical pathways involved in vasodilation and reactive oxygen species management.
In general, with a very few exceptions, if the body has a regulatory mechanism there's at least some reason for it, and tinkering with it without understanding it can have unpredictable downsides.
>as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress
That sounds like something I'd be very wary of manipulating without a good deal of clinical trials. Isn't oxidative stress one of like three primary hypothesized mechanisms of aging?
The body has regulatory mechanisms formed 100k to 1000k years ago, and some even older. The life was a bit different then, as was humans' mental capacity and knowledge.
This is why humans have to actively overcome and sometimes subvert various mechanisms that presume the need to conserve the energy: they hit a gym which the body doesn't like, they limit sugars and fats which the body craves, they consume caffeine, nicotine, or even cocaine to trick the body into working harder and complaining less.
Compared to that, hitting the body with some NIR radiation seems very benign. You can get a lot of that just by walking in the sun, and there are no known adverse effects of that, unlike, say the use of the chemical substances. If anything, it's a promising field of research.
>You can get a lot of that just by walking in the sun, and there are no known adverse effects of that
Other than sunburn and skin cancer?
Morning and evening is entirely infrared (80-90 percent with rest of it visible). No UV.
Sunburns and skin cancer are induced by UV, not NIR light. Put on the protective cream.
The topmost comment in this comment thread starts with the fact that there are over a thousand studies on this already, no? Even if the whole effect isn't well understood, it seems like there is some science behind this.
One could argue that the research goes all the way back to Dr Frederick Cook aboard the Belgica during an Antarctic expedition I which they became trapped by the sea ice. The men suffered from multiple maladies, scurvy included, with one of the prescribed treatments being to stand nude near a blazing fire for an hour. If his notes are to be believed, the men saw some immediate changed in their overall health beyond simply getting warm. By some accounts, he became a bit of a fanatic about how much we humans need the sun, after that.
Or it could be vitamin D, or sunlight killing ticks, or fungal pathogens, or it could be the release of endorphins due to mild sun burn, or any number of other things.
Vitamin D is not an outcome of standing by fire. It is from UV spectrum which is entirely absent from fires. It needs high temperature fire like fusion to be emitted. Totally doable by sun but not by your campfire.
I'd say it's all those things, likely in different combinations based on the circumstances. Cook's notes indicate that he may have considered it a panacea of sorts, triggering a bunch of different stuff that helped overall health, but keep in mind this was something to tune of 150 years ago, so the information he was working with may have limited the scope of his understanding. For all his otherwise infamous reputation, his work aboard the Belgica was nothing short of pioneering for the time. His life after that expedition over-shadows any positive contributions to science he made, unfortunately.
As placebos go, feeling toasty warm has to be way up there.
There maybe a thousand studies.
How many well-designed double-blind studies in humans? That’s the question
i dont know what you mean by science. There are literally 1000s of research papers showing mitochondrial "horsepower" with red light on every type of tissue. Cells heal themselves as first thing when they get extra energy. Do you want your neighborhood clinic to validate before trying some light samples out?
I've looked into red light at least a handful of nights, I never can come away with a conclusion. It seems like it helps, but it also seems super likely it doesn't do much. I've added the super high intensity arrays to my cart even, before reading into various studies and anecdotes and just not being convinced.
What's the most convincing argument for it?
I've used it for a while now on my knees and ankles. Seems like it works. But honestly its hard for me to tell if anything works. I even question Tylenol. All of it seems like it may work some, but its not something I feel has a very acute impact at all.
Without a controlled study, as an individual, how can I tell if my sprain got better in 6 days but would've taken 9 days otherwise???
You need to sprain both knees or ankles at the same time and then use one as the control.
Both most people favor one side of their body, so the wear and tear would already be uneven.
Sprain both knees and ankles and red light treat opposite ones (ie randomly select right ankle + left knee or the opposite pair).
You may also have trouble applying the Aspirin to only one location.
most useful comment in thread like that H.pylori ulcer discovery
Tylenol is a pain reliever so may help with pain. Something like ibuprofen may be a better option, speak to your doctor, as it not only helps with pain but acts as an anti-inflammatory. The important thing to note is that it's effects do not happen instantly but something like several days later so if you have a knee issue, taking it regularly as directed by doctor or manufacturers instructions and not just when your knee hurts can really speed up recovery.
As for your question well you basically just have to trust the science. At some point a rat in a lab probably was intentionally injured next to another rat in the same position and one would get the treatment and the other not. They would then see who healed faster. Things like Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen have been around a long time and studied extensively so they have a good understanding of it's efficacy.
Lastly placebo effect seems to be a real effect so if you do something and you think it might help it might help.
It also drastically lowers the integrity of rebuilt tendon/ligament, say after a sprain.
Seems all that inflammation might actually be doing something.
poor rat :(
No they're lucky, all the best medical discoveries are for them.
Sleep on a firm mattress. Stretch daily. Lift weights 3x a week, for 2x upper body focus and 1x leg day. Cardio 3x a week on days you don’t lift. High protein and low fat every day. Low sugar and carbs.
Pain comes as you age. It isn’t unique to modern man, other than we typically live longer than ancient man.
If you do this plan you can still cheat. Drink, party, eat whatever. You invest effort so you can enjoy life when the moment arises.
Actually the "drink plenty" thing, if you're referring to alcohol, isn't something I can do. I quit (or cut down to insignificant levels) after observing is effect on me via my Garmin stats. Everything goes bad: HRV drops, resting heart rate goes up and sleep scores is terrible. One beer or one glass of white wine with a meal around 6pm is ok. But a night out with the guys makes me look like a very sick 80 year old. Heart rate barely drops below 80 while I'm asleep. Normally it's 48-54 BPM through the night. And if I go for a light run the day after having two or three beers, my heart rate is at least 20 BPM higher. So I made a rule: no exertion after alcohol, no alcohol when I'm already compromised (eg: unwell, when those stats are already bad)
Which Garmin model do you use? Do you know if the measurements provided by an Apple Watch are as informative?
Trying to decide which one to get.
Fēnix 7 Pro Solar Sapphire. I don't know how it compares to Apple, but I love it. Very long battery life (well over a week) and it has sufficient sensors for me. I get blood oxygen, heart monitor (pulse, HRV), altitude, extremely good GPS, message notification mirroring from my phone with canned responses, touchscreen and buttons. The "proper" LED light is more useful than I thought it would be. Garmin Pay only works with Revolut in my country, but at least it's usable - so do your homework here. It can track lots of sports I don't do, I only just it for cycling, running and swimming.
Aside from raw sensor metrics, as someone else said, their Body Battery is pretty decent. The biggest thing for me was seeing a long tail chart for things like sleep score, HRV, average resting heart rate etc and noticing sharp differences on days that I was either sick or drinking alcohol. The effects of a couple of beers on me was similar to COVID (except that they only lasted about 24 hours). But these are things you'll get with any device with long enough battery life that you'll wear it "all the time"
I switched from a Garmin Instinct (several years ago) after having used Garmin GPS devices and watches while in the military to an Apple Watch Ultra now. The quantified scientist channel on youtube had some views that helped me decide (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVhmzxpw5Gg).
Hardware-wise they're largely similar, with some additional edge use cases (depending on who you are ofc) for fitness and outdoors with Garmin.
On the Garmin side for software, one thing I really appreciated on Garmin was the "body battery", or estimate of your energy, as well as health trends, etc. Apple has caught up with many of the features in the last year, and has a little ways to go. Apps like Athlytic do a good job filling the gap, but Apple really is making that gap quite small. Garmin locks your workout data down to its garden somewhat limiting your exports and has it more readily cloud accessible than I'd prefer; I felt the Apple privacy protections were better after reading the TOCs and looking at how the data is stored on each service.
What ultimately made me decide to go with Apple Watch is the above data consideration, the smooth functionality and integration with my iPhone, and the rapid pace of development Apple has had. Also, the cellular, texting (not saying it's the preferred method), Apple pay, etc. are all great to have on the Apple Watch and I can go for a run with only that.
After I paid more attention to my body metrics, I also changed my habits and started focusing on hydration more, when I drank alcohol and how much, and I was able to make good choices that help me feel much better to tackle the next day.
The accuracy isn’t as important as the trend. Don’t expect hospital grade ecg results but either can certainly tell you if things are better or worse since you’re wearing the same sensor.
I’ve got the AW Ultra and I’m quite fond of it, ability to use it without carrying my phone (even audible audiobooks) is the killer for me.
I have a Garmin Epix Pro. I highly recommend the Epix/Fenix line, and these measurements / metrics are far superior to what you get with an Apple Watch (my wife has an Ultra). The differences become even starker if you are an avid athlete and use your Garmin to track your workouts/performances.
I get the same values and trend after a glass of wine or rye and ginger. I have an Apple Watch.
Actually sleeping on a softer mattress leads to more restful sleep for me. I used to sleep on a firm but my partner tries to get the softest mattress she can and I've found that it works a lot better for me than my old firm mattress did. The moveable bases, when adjusted correctly, also allow me to completely relax when I'm asleep and I rest a lot better under those conditions. I notice the difference now whenever I'm traveling because the hotel beds are usually rock hard. Mattress salespeople actually do know what they're talking about some of the time.
I don't know. Humans have slept on the ground for hundreds of thousands of years and now soft mattresses are supposed to be better? Call me unconvinced.
(FWIW, to counter your personal experience with some of my own anecdotal evidence, I always sleep much better on firm mattresses.)
Humans suffered colds without antibiotics for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because we can endure certain circumstances does not make them optimal. Our ancestors certainly didn't avoid softer sleeping spots because of some benefit the firmness of the ground provided.
Humans didn't sleep directly on the ground. Even in hot environments if the ground is even a little damp it will suck all the heat out of your body and chill you to death. What humans have always done is built an insulating mattress out of whatever material is at-hand and then slept on that. You can sleep on straw, dry grass, dry leaves, sticks, burlap or whatever you can find. But you never just sleep straight on the ground.
Ah yes, nothing like giving unsolicited advice without even knowing what medical condition the other person has. You mean well, but it's a crude oversimplification to think every problem is just a matter of just work out the same way I do. For some reason, this phenomenon seems to be common in people who found sports a bit later in life, I'm guessing it's had a big positive impact and they want everyone to experience the same. Coaches and athletes tend to be much less quick to give shotgun advice, as they understand there's considerable depth to the problem.
Suggesting that people work out a few times a week and eat well is not the bad thing you are making it out to be
You're framing a very opinionated (and hotly contested) take "high protein, low fat, low carb" presented as universal truth as just "suggesting to eat well".
Suggesting lifting weights three times a week when all you know is the person has a problem with their joints is not only unhelpful, it can be downright detrimental to their health. It's like recommending someone morbidly obese go for a run. It might be fine, but it might also destroy their joints for the rest of their life, and you can't know which it is without knowing more about their situation and condition.
A wide variety of joint issues are improved by performing a slow and steady progressive overload with lifting weights. Not all of them, of course, and yes there are some issues that preclude lifting, but this seems rather pedantic. There are a trillion things that most humans can do with no detrimental impact that a small subset can't. Trying to couch every suggestion based on edge cases is silly.
The overwhelming majority of people would benefit from doing resistance training 3x a week, cardio 3x a week, and shifting their diet towards more protein and less carbs and fat. People who fall outside of the large majority due to specific medical conditions need to understand their medical conditions and how they impact their daily life, because expecting everyone else to always take into account these issues is unreasonable and unproductive.
> It's like recommending someone morbidly obese go for a run
To be frank, this is a dumb point. The morbidly obese person probably can’t even run for 30 seconds. It won’t destroy their joints for the rest of their life. Suggesting activity over inactivity is good advice for basically every human alive.
Hardly so. I worked as a coach when I was younger and the number of people who hurt themselves this way is considerable, likewise for many completely preventable injuries at the gym. Usually people only turn to professional help once some damage is already done. To exemplify my point, the average BMI in the US is roughly between overweight and obese. If someone in that weight range decides that the treadmill is the way to turn their life around, they will most likely come away with serious injuries if they keep it up.
Suggesting activity is good, yes, but suggesting someone should start with lifting specifically when they have issues with their joints without any further context is moronic.
You might want to look into BPC-157
BPC 157 has little to no reliable data to say it works.
A fair amount of anecdotal data though, it has helped me and others that I know. While the effect is pretty mild it is positive. Having a lifelong chronic condition I’m very sensitive to changes and have no discernible placebo effect. I’ve tried so many things that my prior belief when trying something new is that it wont work, so it’s a nice unexpected surprise when it does.
Ghosts have a fair amount of anecdotal data. Homeopathy has a fair amount of anecdotal data.
I am aware of survivorship bias but for that to apply BPC157 would have to be killing people, this peptide is widely used so if it was killing people we would know due to investigations into their deaths.
People usually hear about this stuff peer to peer and they report back to their peers if it helped or not, so there is a before and after, and for those people there isn’t a selection criteria biased on success. If people don’t report back then others become very interested in why.
I don't think "ghosts" was meant to imply the compound is killing people, just give an example of something people believe in without scientific evidence.
Fair point, I did misread the comment as a selection bias as opposed to a 'Reductio ad absurdum' argument.
Insulin and Ozempic are both bioactive peptides, which is not to say BPC157 is anywhere as strong as either of them, but it's not easily dismissed either. Nowhere near the absurdities of ghosts and homeopathy.
Ok, fine, compare it instead to misleading anecdotal evidence surrounding dietary supplements. We know vitamins(/minerals/whatever) are compounds that are strictly necessary for life. We know that some health outcomes are tied to deficiencies or surpluses of these molecules. We know that in some, very specific cases, a disease is most effectively treated with OTC supplements.
We also know that, despite the vast quantities of anecdotal evidence readily available, taking 500% of your recommended daily value of Vitamin C will not actually effect the duration of your upper-respiratory tract infection. In fact, even ignoring the quality control issues in many commercial supplements, sometimes you can't even treat the deficiency of a specific nutrient with oral supplementation. And yet, again, many people will happily attest to the lifechanging benefits of supplementation to counteract a deficiency they likely never had.
Ok, some people are crazy therefore all anecdotal data is useless? Seems like a bit of a stretch. Someone tells you the weather is nice outside do you demand to see a peer reviewed study to that effect?
Killing people? So bad at reading for comprehension and science.
Most of the stuff online is overpriced and beyond the mitochondrial enzyme absorption spectrum, I can't find any reasonable mechanism for action.
I think your hesitance is valid
You seem like you’re hoping someone will convince you to try it. Why don’t you get a cheap one and give it a shot and see if you feel any different?
I have been wanting one of these and on multiple occasions tried to find some good quality lights. I have not been able to find one that I feel is trustworthy. Do you have any EU based recommendations?
get a broad spectrum red light bulb, that is most well understood and is least risky. Cons is the targetted spectrum would be only a small portion of it but good thing is it is a 4$ cheap test. It worked for me for smaller issues, like minor burns, cuts etc.
I typically don’t buy things unless I feel they have some utility, and it seems the cheap ones likely don’t do enough to notice.
Build your own. But direct from Alibaba or mouser or digikey.
The main science behind it is to hit the absorption peaks of a mitochondrial enzyme. You can make em bright, but be limited on how long you can use it, or dim and be forced to use it constantly for the same effect.
Pulse width modulation is very important in this for penetration. High intensity allows for deeper penetration, but heats up cells causing stress. The ideal scenario is a really strong light, run at a really low duty cycle, allowing for both intensity AND low average wattage, this lessening thermal issues
There might be other mechanisms of actions, as there are so many papers that say "light good", but until they can give a mechanism of action, I'm sticking with what I know
Light is light.
Some wavelengths don't penetrate so deep, and not all bulbs are the same brightness.
I've seen obvious lies on some product descriptions on internet listings, therefore I wouldn't trust a specification claim like "x nm" or "y lumen", and unless I had tools to measure them I would not rely on them meeting those specifications.
Lumen does not measure much red light.
Lumens being perceputual brightness means any package listing it for IR is definitely lying; but that only makes it a first-pass filter, "no false positives" does not mean "no false negatives".
Yeah but like, don't buy from temu or something, buy from digikey etc and just wire it yourself, its cheap enough to be able to fail 20 times without costing more than a burger.
Just go outside, there is lots of IR out there. If it feels good then get whatever gadget you want to emulate it inside.
They didn't have any controls with a different wavelength of light. They might as well be measuring a diurnal pattern.
There seem to be very similar studies with the same conclusion.
The source for your link is the same article being discussed here.
But given how simple their light setup is, they could easily have added a control group.
I think the point of wanting a control is still valid. Science always benefits from having a control
Another:
"Red (660 nm) or near-infrared (810 nm) photobiomodulation stimulates, while blue (415 nm), green (540 nm) light inhibits proliferation in human adipose-derived stem cells" (2017) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07525-w
TIL it's called "red light optogenetics" even when the cells aren't modified for opto-activation.
> In a comparison of electrical, optogenetic, and infrared neural stimulation, Roe et al. [14] found that all three approaches could in principal achieve such specificity. However, because brain tissue is conductive, it can be challenging to confine neuronal activation by traditional electrical stimulation to a single cortical column. In contrast, optogenetic stimulation can be applied with high spatial specificity (e.g. by delivering light via a 200um fiber optic apposed to the cortex) and with cell-type specificity (e.g. excitatory or inhibitory cells); however, optogenetics requires viral vectors and gene transduction procedures, making it less easy for human applications [15]. Over the last decade, infrared neural stimulation (INS), which is a pulsed heat-mediated approach, has provided an alternative method of neural activation. Because brain tissue is 75% water, infrared light delivered near peak absorption wavelengths (e.g. 1875 nm [16]) permits effective delivery of heat to the brain tissue. In particular, experimental and modelling studies [[17], [18], [19]] have shown that 1875 nm light (brief 0.5sec trains of 0.25msec pulses forming a bolus of heat) effectively achieves focal (submillimeter to millimeter sized) activation of neural tissue
Does NIRS -based (neuro-) imaging induce neuronal growth?
Are there better photonic beam-forming apparatuses than TI DLP projectors with millions of tiny actuated mirrors; isn't that what a TV does?
Cold plasma also affects neuronal regrowth and could or should be used for wound closure. Are they cold plasma-ing Sam (Hedlund) in "Tron: Legacy" (2010) before the disc golf discus thing?
Does cold plasma reduce epithelial scarring?
A certain duration of cold plasma also appears to increase seed germination rate FWIW.
To find these studies, I used a search engine and search terms and then picked studies which seem to confirm our bias.
I've seen plenty of red light exposure masks / therapies / tools being sold for absurdly high prices. I'm pretty suspicious of them, not least because I don't know much of anything about this area.
Has anyone gone down the rabbit hole here and have genuine product recommendations that roughly satisfy the conditions laid out in the paper?
* Wavelength: 650–900 nm red light
* Power output: 8 mW/cm²
* Misc design choices: e.g. light diffusers
* what other considerations???
I know some old eastern europeans who just swear by the red heat lamp. Like a big hot bulb akin to something for rotisserie chicken. I imagine its like a targeted hot tub in terms of muscle relief.
I would not recommend applying a heat lamp to your eyes.
I actually found the cheapest and best solution: getting 30 minutes of direct sunlight every day
Challenge there is limiting exposure to damaging UV rays while maximizing near IR
Perineum?
You won’t get an answer. They’ve been arrested for indecent exposure
I think shorts and minimal top would suffice lol
There are some infrared masks which gently warm the eyelids to "melt" the meibomian oil in the eyes, which improves lubrication and can really help with dry eyes and associated fatigue. No clue about their wavelengths, but those are generally pretty cheap.
These people have been doing clinical work for 30 years. check the Science and webinar tabs in the top menu. PBM works for me. Make up your own mind... FDA Clinical grade equipment is not cheap. https://bioflexlaser.com/
They developed a consumer line of equipment last year. https://bioflexwave.com/
Nano will work for PTNS (and more). I have no financial relationship with these people but so far the equipment cost is worth the help with medical issues.
Mitsubishi makes the best leds. get ones made by them. the rest can be driven by whatever
Maybe, maybe not. At power levels high enough to be therapeutic you’re gonna want to think about cooling.
I recently bought a panel on AliExpress for much cheaper than most of the branded one. There's not really reason for them to lie about the wavelength of the LEDs, so build quality is really the only risk factor.
just lie about the led itself as that is the costly component. Who is gonna measure wavelengths and hold them accountable? its a no brainer move to scam the most expensive component that also is hard to verify
Are LED's particularly costly though? Does one wavelength of red LED differ significantly in price from another wavelength of red LED? And does that even matter that much? It seems like higher wavelength has deeper penetration, but how deep you want depends on use case.
You would get deeper penetration from very high power leds driven intermittently though.
So there may be a very different grade of led in the pricy stuff.
In addition to the DIY options in this thread, there's a UK vendor selling an LED light in eyeglass frame, for weekly 3-min use. Has anyone tried it?
670nm Deep Red LED cluster
8mW / cm²
3 minute session timer with automatic switch off
Rechargeable battery with 2 weeks between charges
> eyepower was set up initially as as a division of Planet Lighting in early 2020 with the aim of designing and developing a mass-market product that would allow individuals to take advantage of recent research in to the beneficial effects of deep red light on long term eye health. With the help and guidance of key academics at the forefront of red light therapy and industry professionals, eyepower succeeded in bringing a product to market in June 2022. Within 6 months of launch, the company had sold over 2,500 units to customers around the globe.
I have to wonder if sitting by a fire at night is analogous.
I remember reading somewhere that it is analogous to closing your eyes under the sun, as your eyelids only allow some wavelengths of sunlight. Not sure if that's accurate.
The transmittance of light through the human eyelid is about two orders of magnitude greater at the start of the near-IR (~700) nm than it is at 450nm. [1]
[1]
"Measuring and predicting eyelid spectral transmittance"
Journal of Biomedical Optics, Vol. 16, Issue 6, 067011 (June 2011) https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3593151
It's quite analogous, especially for ideal intensity
Bright enough to warm the body, but not thermally stress the cells.
And yeah, closing your eyelids would block UV light from getting in and cross linking proteins and causing cataracts, while still allowing for NIR light to get in and speed up the mitochondria.
Analogous for sure
So, to replicate the results of this study how long would a person have to do this each (morning?)?
Not exactly a scientific experiment, but based on this video it seems like fire would have significantly less visible intensity for it to make a meaningful difference.
From my experience, fire infrared light can be stronger than the sun. I used to
have occasional pain in my left knee, but resolved it by one or two really hot
sessions at the chimney(I nearly burned myself lol so it has to be really hot in
order to get rid of chronical pain). Knee pain is gone now. I have read a theory
of the vagus nerve sending harmful substances produced by the microbiome in the
bowels to the knee to prevent it going to the brain. The useful compounds get
teleported to the brain(we got no clue how the vagus nerve does it, but if you
lack a functioning vagus nerve the transportation ceases).
Weirdly they didn't test nighttime exposure as an intervention. OK, "weird" means probably it was costly/hard to get people into a lab setting at 9pm... But it does make you wonder!
A different study found that red light helps only if it precedes exposure to blue light, blue light and UV light being the main sources of (oxidative) stress on the retina. Knowing that is probably why they didn't bother testing night-time exposure.
Some believe that the reason red light helps is that cytochrome C oxidase can use the red light to convert serotonin to melatonin and that melatonin is the most important anti-oxidant in the human body. (Under this model, melatonin cannot get into the mitochondria, but serotonin can.)
A few decades ago I had this mysterious sunny morning with colors 10 times brighter than usual. I never managed to figure it out, now the only things I remember are that the curtains were open, the sun came in, I had a dark red box next to my bed that I must have looked at for 20-30 seconds because the color was so absurdly vivid, then I looked at a gold lamp on top and thought woah! The effect persisted for a while, everything in my house looked different. I've also noticed changes in my vision when sleeping in different places.
What little I remember it sure fits your description. I might try hooking up a red heat lamp to a timer as an alarm clock to see what happens.
I bought an infrared parabolic heater to test this out once, as a friend made a comment insinuating that more time in front of fire meant a better sleep. I ran it for a few days, but the results were mixed and inconclusive.
I suspect because the longer IR wavelengths just heat the body up, it's hard to get enough of the more "useful" wavelengths without overheating
what about the sun?
Sun is good, but has limitations
It has UV, which stresses out the cells
You can't PWM the sun, it's hard to get full naked coverage in front of it. Doesn't perfectly target NIR or NIR-II biological windows.
But for a base/starter, it can't be beat.
Simply put, light is better than no light.
I don’t think people realize how much brighter the sun is than almost all other light sources in their life.
LED headlights in some vehicles are a close second.
My wife has a "Dr Dennis Gross Red Light Mask" that has a setting for 650nm + 850nm red light. Supposed to help with aging or something but the specs match up perfectly.
Probably way too expensive for people to buy for this purpose(probably too expensive for skin care too, it's just a mask with red LED's, if I knew that's what she was buying I probably would've just made one. That's probably why she didn't tell me). Anyway, for anyone out there looking to buy a product, it's worth checking if your wife/gf already has something. Lots of products like this for anti aging as well as for hair growth
$20 of LEDS stuck on a flex PCB molded to a $10 plastic mask, with a $3 power supply sold for $450.
I have been telling myself for years I need to start building an selling these things.
Do you think it works? You can be honest here.
Husband alarm activated:
Danger Danger, make positive statement and redirect to how they feel about it!
Are there any valid safety concerns with this? Or is it just the simple check: "as long as the wattage is low enough, it's fine."
My experience with evaluating consumer medical devices ("lifestyle" and "fitness") is that what is on the box is often not what the device actually does. Besides wavelength and wattage, you would probably need to check for consistency, whether there aren't any spikes, etc. I don't know how much IR light is dangerous for the brain / what tolerances are acceptable.
I would not use it without proper eye protection for that particular wavelength. Staring into an infrared light will probably negatively affect your eyesight. As the eyes cannot see it, your pupil will not react and you also can't judge how bright it is.
What about putting it to the side at a 60 degree angle?
The FOV of your eyes is insane, you have usable retina more than 90 degrees off center. If you want to avoid illuminating your eyes, you need to avoid illuminating your face.
More is not better. Research suggests optimal mJ/c^2/s dosages for each wavelength. Stuff on amazon is not going to be calibrated at all to dosage or even wavelength. Aside from being ineffective, there aren't dangerous side effects except prolonged exposure if staring into high intensity NIR.
Can you explain more about optimal dosages and which products deliver those dosages? We get about 0.05 J/cm²/s of infrared irradiance from natural sunlight, so we'd probably want to be at that level, or above but less than an order of magnitude above it?
One challenge is the irradiance drops off as a square a distance. So like 5 inch away vs 1 inch away is a difference of 25x irradiance.
I came here to link this. @manmal was truly ahead of their time.
My head canon is that sitting around drinking tea and watching the sunset is what humans need most…
for whatever it’s worth, I have found a lot of meaning in sunset runs.
So many grifters in this space.
Someone I know desperately bought a $8000 red light therapy gun pitched to her by a chiropractor to help her father who had catastrophic brain damage from a stroke. :/
The gun has a dial on the side that lets you cycle through "Cancer", "Chronic pain", "Acute pain", and other ailments.
Whatever legitimacy red light therapy has, it's set back by the legion of people trying to make money selling confusing products, and it's hard to tell what's legitimate or not.
Between some red-colored LEDs glued inside an eye mask and those fan-cooled NIR array panels on aliexpress, what is legitimate and how do you tell? I think it's that confusion that seeds the field for people to say "none of it unless you're spending good money [on my product]."
I hate it, and I'd consider this a crime akin to theft. It's literally taking advantage of people who don't have the faculty to defend themselves, and capitalising on their human weakness.
From what I've read, it actually seems like a bad idea for cancer. Red light is not going to induce cancer like UV, but if cancer is already there, it'd get the same mitochondria boosting effect, essentially helping it grow more.
I don't know wether it's true or not, but I liked the red light, and my spouse too. It helps - improves mood, heals minor pain, calms you down, and warms you up. It also helps with falling taking naps if needed, I fell asleep faster. Lots of joy for $70. I found vintage Kenmore red lamp with red bulb on eBay. I find it better than LEDs, since it emits heat as well.
I use a 10,000 LUX light therapy lamp in the morning and it does wonders for my mood. When I started, colleagues commented on my better mood without knowing about the lamp (obviously). It is amazing how large of an effect light has on us.
This is basically a mini grow light right?
Yes, I think so.
Is that a red one? Or one of those "simulate the sun" full-spectrum ones?
It is the full-spectrum one, not red. I should have been clearer in my comment.
Anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt: I’ve used a pair of red light glasses from a Dr in the UK and saw noticeably improved vision.
With those the same amount of red light would have hit your retinas anyways, no?
Yes, pretty much I’d think—but less of the other wavelengths.
I imagine that this could serve as different enough input to matter. With the eyes being a very expensive and highly-strung instrument and all?
Probably the pupils dilate due to overall decrease in light intensity
>A single 3 min 670 nm morning exposure to the eye at energy levels approximately a log unit greater than found in environmental light
it sounds like getting up early and getting out like for a run can be beneficial in one more way.
"Early morning (6 am) relative irradiance of the sun is higher in the visible and NIR spectrum compared to midday exposure (noon)"
Yes and before reading HN on a screen which is my habit, unfortunately.
Just need to redshift the screen. But the intensity will not be enough, unfortunately.
A single 3min 670nm morning exposure may be more valuable in latitudes where the sun does not rise until after 8AM.
[deleted]
The most important part of that paper is the first two sentences:
"Metabolic rate and ageing are both regulated by mitochondria. Mitochondrial membrane potential, however, declines with age resulting in reduced adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production, which is a major source of cellular energy. Cellular decline is further accelerated with ageing by increased production of pro-inflammatory reactive oxygen species (ROS)1."
Forget everything else. Why does "Exposure to long wavelength light (650–900 nm) in animals improves mitochondrial function, increasing ATP production and reducing ROS"? That is what needs to be figured out, because red light will not always increase ATP production and reducing ROS because we are all different. Genetics, nutrition, it all plays a role.
It might be as well that red light helps in the short term but hurts in the long term.
On ATP, do you know what the real name for ATP is Mg-ATP, That is magnesium ATP. Not enough magnesium, not enough ATP. (I am in no way claiming that magnesium is a cure all, just making a point.) What reduces ROS? Selenium, magnesium, Catalase, etc...
While this site is particularly for me-cfs and long-covid illness, they do great analysis of many studies on a variety of subjects and recently red-light-therapy
Looks really interesting. Wondering if I would need special equipment like they describe in order to hit the intensity they describe specifically on the cornea or if it would be effective enough to buy a 670nm red light bulb and sit near it in an otherwise dark room in the morning?
We have some of these devices (not affiliated with the company) [1] for general consumption, and also for dentists and physician in the family. Also a very complete book [2]. I am talking as a layman since I am not in that field.
I like to read book in the dark with the red LED on my headtorch (so as not to bother gf) before I go to sleep. It’s prob 630nm not 670 but I get about two pages in and fall instantly asleep. Can recommend
I do the exact same thing, and have the exact same result (my gf can't even tell it's on with her eyes closed). I use a Wurkkos HD15R, which according the manual uses a 660nm light (Luminus SST-20-DR-B120-V660), mainly got it for walking/camping but would recommend for any situation a light is needed.
Could you please link to the product. I have trouble sleeping. Am interested in trying this technique. Thanks in advance.
Here is the recipe. Don't skip any steps
- Your room must be cold. If you stand around in the room you should feel kind of chilly
- Your room should be quiet. If you have loud A/C which turns on and off that's a problem c.f. step 1 -- think hard about how to meet both requirements given your personal situation/constraints
- Your room must be dark. Not necessarily pitch black but dark. No blinking LEDs.
- A couple hours before bed, remind your brain that it is soon time to sleep
- Your phone must not be in the room with you. Your phone sleeps in the kitchen. I cannot emphasize this enough. It's OK you are going to have a nice book to read instead
- You need a real physical book. Books are cheap and make you more sexy and smarter. No Kindle
- There's nothing special about that headtorch -- there are hundreds of head torches you can buy with a red ~630nm LED. it's the standard red color LED. It would be interesting to swap it out for the 670nm wavelength described in the article though!
- Actually that model is pretty heavy and just happens to be the one I bought for camping -- you could do a lot better/smaller/lighter e.g. Nitecore NU25, Black Diamond Spot 350
- You will feel like a clown when you put the headtorch on. That's okay -- you read books and sleep well, making you very attractive in the daytime. It's OK to look like a clown at nighttime
- You are going to sleep on your back. You can do this, I believe in you. You are going to sleep positioned like Tutankhamun and for nearly as long
- You need a reasonably firm pillow and you need to set it up right. It needs to support your neck and stop you rolling on your side. None of this foam bullshit it needs to have feathers in it. You are a human being not a cellphone. You don't sleep on plastic
- OK let's get this bread. You lie down you turn off all the lights and you turn on your cool little headtorch. You get your head very well positioned on the pillow. You are about to sleep like a boss, you're going to sleep like Genghis Khan. You better get those covers tight because it's fucking cold in your room. Then you start reading. Hell yeah this book is so good. It feels so natural and rewarding and you remember that people used to write in ways that are outside our grasp today, no LLM or modern author can touch it. Within a couple of pages your eyes are shut. You find yourself holding the book with your eyes closed, barely awake. At that moment boom you put down the book, ideally switch off the headtorch, and disappear
No the wattage used in clinical phototherapy is much higher and concentrated in specific bands.
My much less powerful home phototherapy light weighs about 20 lbs and I have to cover my eyes with multiple layers to use it.
It does not. The red pixels don’t get any redder, it’s just turning down the other ones. These being LEDs, it has a sharp spike in the visual spectrum instead of a black-body curve that would cross into infrared.
670nm is still visible red light. Infra-red starts at wave lengths above 750
Can I do this with an LED strip and maybe home assistant in my office?
Dumb question, if you fill the monitor/display with rgb(232, 0, 0) would it emit 670nm light or is it not strong enough? Could one benefit from red curtains or wall paper?
Is this true only for vision? Mitochondria are in other places too
There is a large amount of evidence for red light therapy for all parts of the body.
A large amount of mostly inconclusive evidence!
I don't know why the people running red light studies hate control groups so much. If you do that many studies, varying wave length and intensity for some of them should be trivial. Yet somehow they almost never do that.
So: 90W mask or 1500W panel? Infrared, red light, or does yellow work just as well, maybe?
The people doing near-UV therapy for skin conditions managed to do all that. There's a know effective wave length (it's always 311nm), there's dosage plans. There's licenced medical devices doing the irradiation. IR people seem less interested in all that.
So the idea is to create "original ideal environments" for these little critters, to reduce their need to migrate to the skin and back?
Alot of these devices are quite expensive. Would it be possible to purchase the LEDs and create a sort of guerrilla red light therapy device?
670nm is 670nm, no matter the marketing and/or medical certifications & approvals
In theory. In practice without testing there's no guarantee you're getting only 670nm light. I can make a brilliant 670nm source that also douses you with 385nm light.
A spectroscope is a handheld optical device which allows you to see the light distribution coming from a light source. Should be able to pick one up for under a hundred bucks.
I've actually looked into this in the past (for measuring the spectra of LED bulbs), but they're significantly more expensive than I expected! Gratings are cheap, but digital models seem to run upwards of $2k. Any suggestions for midrange models would be appreciated!
Save money and go analog! Calibrate against a known spectrum. One example would be a sodium vapour street light but there aren't as many around these days.
Not really. In practice, the vast majority of LED producers provide the Spectral Power Distribution in the datasheet.
Agreed, but I'd also argue that's what medical certs and approvals are doing in this setting.
[deleted]
Guerrilla? Like you mean to jump out of tree cover and shine red light at people randomly?
I'm wondering what wavelengths our monitors / phones have. I always thought of flux (the app) that it is reducing blue light. But keeping the red part may be just as important.
Has anyone had success for sports injuries like tennis elbow or is a heating pad just as good?
Would it work with a red translucid film taped to a regular white lamp/LED?
Red light therapy is vasty undervalued among the techie longevity crowd I know when compared to supplements, perhaps because of the large initial cost and lower portability of systems.
The evidence seems stronger than for most supplements people take, for everything from hair loss to collagen production to soften tissue repair to brain function.
Red light has a negligible effect on hair loss compared to Rogaine (minoxidil), after reading many papers about this. Not sure about the other claims, but they also seem unlikely.
I think one of the issues is how over priced most of the panels are. You're paying an arm and a leg for lots of little red lights. Nothing more.
I thought they were overpriced until I looked into building one myself. The heat sinks were going to be really expensive. The LEDs and lenses weren't cheap either.
Any evidence on this? It sounds too good to be true.
[dead]
Does this mean I shouldn’t wear the protective glasses when doing red light therapy?
I think a good rule of thumb is to stop if it hurts. I presume you're not using a laser. Your eyes are pretty good at telling you when something is too much
so.. resurrect the dark(red) room for paper-photo-development.. and go there in 9.AM ?
too bad the dark red bulb was thrown away together with all the other no-use-anymore equipment..
There are more than 1000 similar papers on red and near infrared. All pointing to its impact on mitochondria. Near Infrared (NIR) penetrates few cm, leading to its mitochondrial impact in muscle cells too.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=near+i...
A family member of mine is involved in research into using red/NIR light to improve brain injuries outcomes. Apparently it can also irradiate passing blood which then circulates with the same mitochondrial clean up signals, so it has some secondary effects on non-penetrated areas.
I got to try a prototype LED helmet that blasts 90 watts of lensed, circumspaced NIR beams through the skull for 4 minutes. I can say that an hour later it leaves me feeling mildly buzzed. The main effect I can identify is a mild and general sense of stamina/energy. I used it before/after an all-nighter and didn't feel as impacted as I should have; analogous to how you feel the next morning after drinking at age 20 vs. age 30. All anecdotal of course.
They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
I have so many questions about both apparatuses. 90W input or irradiated? Pulse width modulated/dimmed? Lasers? LEDs? 850nm? 830nm? 810nm?
For the panel, 1800W is a LOT of power to put through 2 feet. Is it actually 1800W? What wavelengths? PWM?
I've been using a NIR belt flipped inside out on my pillow the last few weeks. It's only 6W of 850nm, but I've been feeling less dumb recently. Not sure if it's correlated, but until I settle it for sure, I'm going to keep on using it.
The prototype came with a power supply that is set at 24V, 5A and consumes 90W when running. Not sure how the control circuits work but its pretty simply operated with a 3P2T switch for 650nm/Off/850nm. Each module contains a fan cooled array of LEDs behind a plastic lens. I think it has some thermal shut off protection circuit as well.
I just dug out the spec sheet for the other device and you're right. It says "LED Power Class 1800W", but lists power consumption as 350W.
I really like it's potential to improve the right kind of symptoms when applied correctly and I'm also wary of people with bottom line incentives filling in any scientific uncertainty with miracle cures. But I agree, it's definitely worth using. It's a one time purchase with no side effects, so the worst case risk is just disappointment.
It would probably be 1800W continuously but is pulsed and the duty cycle probably limits the power to 350W.
Can light penetrate the skull bones though?
yes, and you can even use infrared spectroscopy to infer brain activity via the bold signal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_near-infrared_spect...
infrared, yes. Although depends on skin colour wrapping the skull. Melanin absorbs everything under the sun. It has very high absorption of UV but somewhat absorbs infrared too in this range of frequencies. Darker the color of skin, higher the melanin and higher the absorption by skin.
Yes
Light is anything in the spectrum visible to people, with the exception of infrared being called light. What evidence do you have that this is true?
Not wanting to violate the "don't tell people to google the obvious, no matter how condescending they're being", I googled the obvious for you.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10103-024-04024-z
To achieve a neuroprotective effect, PBM must overcome several barriers, including bone tissue, a complex structure with variable optical properties
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/neurophotonics/v...
Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a near-infrared (NIR) light-based therapy technique and has shown therapeutic effectiveness for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including MDD. The transcranial PBM (t-PBM) technique delivers NIR light through the scalp and skull.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/1...
Near-infrared spectroscopy in the brain is made possible by the relative transparency of biological tissues (including bone) to light for infrared wavelengths ranging from 650 to 925 nm.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/1...
Penetration of light from an 820 nm gallium-aluminum-arsenium laser diode through a sample of fresh human skin. Data extrapolated from data presented in Kolari (25) and shown in the blue columns. A line of regression is shown by the black dotted line. The regression line indicates that light from a low-power laser diode can penetrate less than 2.2 mm into human skin.
This says that a 820nm laser penetrate 2.2mm into human skin. That is 0.08 inches. That is about the width of a groove on the top of your finger. How does that square with saying that it could go through skull bone that is 3.5x as thick while being more dense than tissue?
I assume you had a cut-n-paste failure with that link. I think you meant https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3..., which I assume you picked because the title. It is an interesting article, should you ever decide to read it beyond cherry picking the caption from 'Figure 2'. But TL;DR: It doesn't say what you apparently think it says. The author is questioning the therapeutic value of low power infrared light therapy, and demonstrating what is required for medical effect. He is not questioning whether or not infrared light can penetrate skin and bone, because it does. For example:
We have demonstrated that our multi-watt NIR data delivers an estimated 1.65–3.7 J/cm2 to a depth of 30 mm. As shown above, this is within the biologically meaningful fluence range (1, 2, 4, 6, 47) and is more than 100-fold greater than the fluence delivered by an LED system or by a low-power infrared light system according to the findings of the authors cited above (7, 18, 21, 37, 38, 48).
and
Patients receiving 10–20 treatments of multi-watt infrared light, each lasting approximately 20–30 min, have experienced significant, and often, dramatic improvements (47, 48). The fluence of combined 810 and 980 nm light delivered during each of these treatments was, on average, 81 J/cm2/treatment. Correcting for forehead skin, skull, and 1 cm of brain tissue, this delivered a fluence of fluence of 0.41 J/cm2 to the neurons 1 cm below the cortical surface.
The authors paper listed as citation #4 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/NDT.S78182#medi...) has more detail on his methods, and the abstract sums it up pretty well:
NIR in the power range of 10–15 W at 810 and 980 nm can provide fluence within the range shown to be biologically beneficial at 3 cm depth. You can't ELI5 more than that.
Understanding does take work, and given your posting history of mostly low effort negative snark, I probably spent more time than I should have. But it was an interesting diversion into something I otherwise wouldn't have known.
skepticism without homework is stupidity. The above snark demonstrates effectively.
You didn't confront what I said and just switched goal posts to talking about "effectiveness".
Instead of light getting through bone you said
From your own link:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3...
Now, the skin of the forehead overlying a portion of the frontal lobes is approximately 2 mm thick. It is possible that tiny amounts of infrared light from lower powered emitters could penetrate the forehead skin; however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin. Nevertheless, the remainder of the scalp, over which hoods, helmets, and posteriorly placed LED pads are emitting low-power light, is an average of 5.1–5.8 mm thick.
Simply put, it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head if the light energy from that LED cannot penetrate through human skin further than 3 mm. The energy of low-power devices simply will not penetrate the thickness of the scalp overlying much of the skull.
Some have suggested that NIR energy from low-power devices penetrates deeper if longer exposure times are used. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles that scatter, absorption, and refraction play in degrading NIR energy as it passes through tissue.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue – often several cm below the surface.
Longer exposure times will simply pump more energy into the epidermis and dermis of the skin/scalp.
Longer exposure times do not yield deeper penetration. These limitations on penetration only take into consideration the skin and scalp; however, the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light, because people can't see it (and possibly no animals can). If you drop the frequency enough something will get through (a tiny percent) and if you keep calling it light then you can make the false claim that light passes through bone, when we know that isn't true because we can see bones and they aren't transparent. We could say radio waves pass though people too and therefore light goes right though people.
Simply put
The siren cry of ignorance everywhere.
however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin.
Yes. The study discusses this. Its why the researchers moved to more powerful sources. To provide the results you refuse to read. Which I explicitly pointed out in my reply so you didn't have to worry about struggling with reading comprehension yourself. Which you ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.
it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head
Yes, that is what the researchers said. LEDs don't have enough power; they measured that. That's why they didn't use regular LEDs. And they measured that change. And gave you the parameters of their setup for you to check (well, not you...for people into facts and science and such). And cited the people who had similar results. And cited people who had different results. And other science things that people who actually read this stuff for comprehension appreciate. That you ignore.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue
Different...energy? Physics would like a word with you. But physics does expect you to have done your homework, so I'll let it know you won't be around any time soon. I told it to be nice, and remember not everyone has a high school level understanding of physics, and they might say silly things. Be excellent to each other and all that.
often several cm below the surface.
Yeah. How about 3cm? Like the researchers said. In their measurements. That they didn't guess at.
the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well
Yes. The researchers discuss skulls in detail. Not just people skulls...sheep skulls and mice skulls too. 3cm on people; all the way through in mice. Sheep somewhere between. And a lot about hands, but I don't figure you care about those. They wrote it down and it got published. After actually doing the science.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light
There it is! Ding ding! The audience watching at home knew this was coming.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!" a couple of exchanges back and moved on to easier targets with less annoying 'facts' and 'proof' and 'published works of science by experts' around for anyone who cared to check. I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium.
Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!"
I did mention this in my first reply, I don't know why you feel the need for this manic response.
I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium. Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
I don't understand where these insults are coming from. It doesn't seem like you're addressing that lower frequency EM that no animal can see isn't light. Saying "WTF and LOL" and trying to be patronizing doesn't confront what I posted.
You realize for most of your post you are replying to your own source right? I didn't write that, I took it from your link and put the most relevant stuff in italics. When you are quoting "Simply put" and replying: "The siren cry of ignorance everywhere." that's from your link, not me.
Radio waves do with no trouble. Blue does not at all. Everything between is on a sliding scale; there are no qualitative changes until you get to ionising radiation.
Though there’s a bit in the middle where it matches the resonant frequency of water molecules, yes.
> They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
I think the commercial model here is a tanning bed config with LED tubes. Goggles on, hop in the healing tube.
What is the distance of the LED from the scalp? I want to approximate the amount of irradiance (mW/squared area).
It sits right on the head with a ~1 inch foam spacer. The lens might change the fluence, which I think was a key part of the pending patent. Also 90W is the power draw for all the modules in the helmet. I can ask though what the targeted mW/area is and reply if I can get an answer.
I have a TBI which resulted in a number of chronic symptoms including decades of memory loss, although thankfully I retained my functional intelligence at least so I can keep working (although I still have many ongoing issues including atypical migraines leading to cyclic vomiting etc).
I have been exploring red light therapy using cheapo panels as well as fischer wallace devices (and have the OAK preordered via the IPO stock options), so I'm definitely trying out all the 'technologic approaches' since traditional medicine has been largely of no use (shout out to ondandestrone though, the best nausea suppresant I know of which can help fend off the migraince/vomiting episodes).
All that to say: Is your friend interested in any more TBI test subjects? Happy to pay for the device assuming I can afford it and provide detailed notes to help with any studies; this sounds like exactly the type of thing I need to try next.
No worries if not, but figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
> I can ask though what the targeted mW/area is and reply if I can get an answer.
Please do.
whats the pulse frequency you use?
I mean, it is kinda quacky to treat someone with that until it's demonstrated by science. I'm open to the idea that light is an important regulator, but that effect should be easily observable if it's truly effective.
I'm no expert but my gist is that light interacts with an enzyme in the electron transport chain (cytochrome c oxidase). CCO is embedded in the inner membrane of mitochondria, and nitric oxide binds to CCO which temporarily inhibits cellular respiration as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress. Red and NIR light can photodissociate NO from CCO with the right intensity and wavelength, which restarts cellular respiration and ATP production. The release of NO into the bloodstream can secondarily trigger other chemical pathways involved in vasodilation and reactive oxygen species management.
Edit: found a wiki with more details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode_therapy#P...
In general, with a very few exceptions, if the body has a regulatory mechanism there's at least some reason for it, and tinkering with it without understanding it can have unpredictable downsides.
>as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress
That sounds like something I'd be very wary of manipulating without a good deal of clinical trials. Isn't oxidative stress one of like three primary hypothesized mechanisms of aging?
The body has regulatory mechanisms formed 100k to 1000k years ago, and some even older. The life was a bit different then, as was humans' mental capacity and knowledge.
This is why humans have to actively overcome and sometimes subvert various mechanisms that presume the need to conserve the energy: they hit a gym which the body doesn't like, they limit sugars and fats which the body craves, they consume caffeine, nicotine, or even cocaine to trick the body into working harder and complaining less.
Compared to that, hitting the body with some NIR radiation seems very benign. You can get a lot of that just by walking in the sun, and there are no known adverse effects of that, unlike, say the use of the chemical substances. If anything, it's a promising field of research.
>You can get a lot of that just by walking in the sun, and there are no known adverse effects of that
Other than sunburn and skin cancer?
Morning and evening is entirely infrared (80-90 percent with rest of it visible). No UV.
Sunburns and skin cancer are induced by UV, not NIR light. Put on the protective cream.
The topmost comment in this comment thread starts with the fact that there are over a thousand studies on this already, no? Even if the whole effect isn't well understood, it seems like there is some science behind this.
One could argue that the research goes all the way back to Dr Frederick Cook aboard the Belgica during an Antarctic expedition I which they became trapped by the sea ice. The men suffered from multiple maladies, scurvy included, with one of the prescribed treatments being to stand nude near a blazing fire for an hour. If his notes are to be believed, the men saw some immediate changed in their overall health beyond simply getting warm. By some accounts, he became a bit of a fanatic about how much we humans need the sun, after that.
Or it could be vitamin D, or sunlight killing ticks, or fungal pathogens, or it could be the release of endorphins due to mild sun burn, or any number of other things.
Vitamin D is not an outcome of standing by fire. It is from UV spectrum which is entirely absent from fires. It needs high temperature fire like fusion to be emitted. Totally doable by sun but not by your campfire.
I'd say it's all those things, likely in different combinations based on the circumstances. Cook's notes indicate that he may have considered it a panacea of sorts, triggering a bunch of different stuff that helped overall health, but keep in mind this was something to tune of 150 years ago, so the information he was working with may have limited the scope of his understanding. For all his otherwise infamous reputation, his work aboard the Belgica was nothing short of pioneering for the time. His life after that expedition over-shadows any positive contributions to science he made, unfortunately.
As placebos go, feeling toasty warm has to be way up there.
There maybe a thousand studies.
How many well-designed double-blind studies in humans? That’s the question
i dont know what you mean by science. There are literally 1000s of research papers showing mitochondrial "horsepower" with red light on every type of tissue. Cells heal themselves as first thing when they get extra energy. Do you want your neighborhood clinic to validate before trying some light samples out?
I've looked into red light at least a handful of nights, I never can come away with a conclusion. It seems like it helps, but it also seems super likely it doesn't do much. I've added the super high intensity arrays to my cart even, before reading into various studies and anecdotes and just not being convinced.
What's the most convincing argument for it?
I've used it for a while now on my knees and ankles. Seems like it works. But honestly its hard for me to tell if anything works. I even question Tylenol. All of it seems like it may work some, but its not something I feel has a very acute impact at all.
Without a controlled study, as an individual, how can I tell if my sprain got better in 6 days but would've taken 9 days otherwise???
You need to sprain both knees or ankles at the same time and then use one as the control.
Both most people favor one side of their body, so the wear and tear would already be uneven.
Sprain both knees and ankles and red light treat opposite ones (ie randomly select right ankle + left knee or the opposite pair).
You may also have trouble applying the Aspirin to only one location.
most useful comment in thread like that H.pylori ulcer discovery
Tylenol is a pain reliever so may help with pain. Something like ibuprofen may be a better option, speak to your doctor, as it not only helps with pain but acts as an anti-inflammatory. The important thing to note is that it's effects do not happen instantly but something like several days later so if you have a knee issue, taking it regularly as directed by doctor or manufacturers instructions and not just when your knee hurts can really speed up recovery.
As for your question well you basically just have to trust the science. At some point a rat in a lab probably was intentionally injured next to another rat in the same position and one would get the treatment and the other not. They would then see who healed faster. Things like Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen have been around a long time and studied extensively so they have a good understanding of it's efficacy.
Lastly placebo effect seems to be a real effect so if you do something and you think it might help it might help.
Ibuprofen has some well known (and negative) side effects, including ulcers, increased risk of stroke and heart attack, and even significantly increased malformed sperm production [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00456...]
Vitamin I is not, well, actually a vitamin.
It also drastically lowers the integrity of rebuilt tendon/ligament, say after a sprain.
Seems all that inflammation might actually be doing something.
poor rat :(
No they're lucky, all the best medical discoveries are for them.
Sleep on a firm mattress. Stretch daily. Lift weights 3x a week, for 2x upper body focus and 1x leg day. Cardio 3x a week on days you don’t lift. High protein and low fat every day. Low sugar and carbs.
Pain comes as you age. It isn’t unique to modern man, other than we typically live longer than ancient man.
If you do this plan you can still cheat. Drink, party, eat whatever. You invest effort so you can enjoy life when the moment arises.
Actually the "drink plenty" thing, if you're referring to alcohol, isn't something I can do. I quit (or cut down to insignificant levels) after observing is effect on me via my Garmin stats. Everything goes bad: HRV drops, resting heart rate goes up and sleep scores is terrible. One beer or one glass of white wine with a meal around 6pm is ok. But a night out with the guys makes me look like a very sick 80 year old. Heart rate barely drops below 80 while I'm asleep. Normally it's 48-54 BPM through the night. And if I go for a light run the day after having two or three beers, my heart rate is at least 20 BPM higher. So I made a rule: no exertion after alcohol, no alcohol when I'm already compromised (eg: unwell, when those stats are already bad)
Which Garmin model do you use? Do you know if the measurements provided by an Apple Watch are as informative?
Trying to decide which one to get.
Fēnix 7 Pro Solar Sapphire. I don't know how it compares to Apple, but I love it. Very long battery life (well over a week) and it has sufficient sensors for me. I get blood oxygen, heart monitor (pulse, HRV), altitude, extremely good GPS, message notification mirroring from my phone with canned responses, touchscreen and buttons. The "proper" LED light is more useful than I thought it would be. Garmin Pay only works with Revolut in my country, but at least it's usable - so do your homework here. It can track lots of sports I don't do, I only just it for cycling, running and swimming.
Aside from raw sensor metrics, as someone else said, their Body Battery is pretty decent. The biggest thing for me was seeing a long tail chart for things like sleep score, HRV, average resting heart rate etc and noticing sharp differences on days that I was either sick or drinking alcohol. The effects of a couple of beers on me was similar to COVID (except that they only lasted about 24 hours). But these are things you'll get with any device with long enough battery life that you'll wear it "all the time"
I switched from a Garmin Instinct (several years ago) after having used Garmin GPS devices and watches while in the military to an Apple Watch Ultra now. The quantified scientist channel on youtube had some views that helped me decide (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVhmzxpw5Gg).
Hardware-wise they're largely similar, with some additional edge use cases (depending on who you are ofc) for fitness and outdoors with Garmin.
On the Garmin side for software, one thing I really appreciated on Garmin was the "body battery", or estimate of your energy, as well as health trends, etc. Apple has caught up with many of the features in the last year, and has a little ways to go. Apps like Athlytic do a good job filling the gap, but Apple really is making that gap quite small. Garmin locks your workout data down to its garden somewhat limiting your exports and has it more readily cloud accessible than I'd prefer; I felt the Apple privacy protections were better after reading the TOCs and looking at how the data is stored on each service.
What ultimately made me decide to go with Apple Watch is the above data consideration, the smooth functionality and integration with my iPhone, and the rapid pace of development Apple has had. Also, the cellular, texting (not saying it's the preferred method), Apple pay, etc. are all great to have on the Apple Watch and I can go for a run with only that.
After I paid more attention to my body metrics, I also changed my habits and started focusing on hydration more, when I drank alcohol and how much, and I was able to make good choices that help me feel much better to tackle the next day.
The accuracy isn’t as important as the trend. Don’t expect hospital grade ecg results but either can certainly tell you if things are better or worse since you’re wearing the same sensor.
I’ve got the AW Ultra and I’m quite fond of it, ability to use it without carrying my phone (even audible audiobooks) is the killer for me.
I have a Garmin Epix Pro. I highly recommend the Epix/Fenix line, and these measurements / metrics are far superior to what you get with an Apple Watch (my wife has an Ultra). The differences become even starker if you are an avid athlete and use your Garmin to track your workouts/performances.
I get the same values and trend after a glass of wine or rye and ginger. I have an Apple Watch.
Actually sleeping on a softer mattress leads to more restful sleep for me. I used to sleep on a firm but my partner tries to get the softest mattress she can and I've found that it works a lot better for me than my old firm mattress did. The moveable bases, when adjusted correctly, also allow me to completely relax when I'm asleep and I rest a lot better under those conditions. I notice the difference now whenever I'm traveling because the hotel beds are usually rock hard. Mattress salespeople actually do know what they're talking about some of the time.
I don't know. Humans have slept on the ground for hundreds of thousands of years and now soft mattresses are supposed to be better? Call me unconvinced.
(FWIW, to counter your personal experience with some of my own anecdotal evidence, I always sleep much better on firm mattresses.)
Humans suffered colds without antibiotics for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because we can endure certain circumstances does not make them optimal. Our ancestors certainly didn't avoid softer sleeping spots because of some benefit the firmness of the ground provided.
Humans didn't sleep directly on the ground. Even in hot environments if the ground is even a little damp it will suck all the heat out of your body and chill you to death. What humans have always done is built an insulating mattress out of whatever material is at-hand and then slept on that. You can sleep on straw, dry grass, dry leaves, sticks, burlap or whatever you can find. But you never just sleep straight on the ground.
Ah yes, nothing like giving unsolicited advice without even knowing what medical condition the other person has. You mean well, but it's a crude oversimplification to think every problem is just a matter of just work out the same way I do. For some reason, this phenomenon seems to be common in people who found sports a bit later in life, I'm guessing it's had a big positive impact and they want everyone to experience the same. Coaches and athletes tend to be much less quick to give shotgun advice, as they understand there's considerable depth to the problem.
Suggesting that people work out a few times a week and eat well is not the bad thing you are making it out to be
You're framing a very opinionated (and hotly contested) take "high protein, low fat, low carb" presented as universal truth as just "suggesting to eat well".
Suggesting lifting weights three times a week when all you know is the person has a problem with their joints is not only unhelpful, it can be downright detrimental to their health. It's like recommending someone morbidly obese go for a run. It might be fine, but it might also destroy their joints for the rest of their life, and you can't know which it is without knowing more about their situation and condition.
A wide variety of joint issues are improved by performing a slow and steady progressive overload with lifting weights. Not all of them, of course, and yes there are some issues that preclude lifting, but this seems rather pedantic. There are a trillion things that most humans can do with no detrimental impact that a small subset can't. Trying to couch every suggestion based on edge cases is silly.
The overwhelming majority of people would benefit from doing resistance training 3x a week, cardio 3x a week, and shifting their diet towards more protein and less carbs and fat. People who fall outside of the large majority due to specific medical conditions need to understand their medical conditions and how they impact their daily life, because expecting everyone else to always take into account these issues is unreasonable and unproductive.
> It's like recommending someone morbidly obese go for a run
To be frank, this is a dumb point. The morbidly obese person probably can’t even run for 30 seconds. It won’t destroy their joints for the rest of their life. Suggesting activity over inactivity is good advice for basically every human alive.
Hardly so. I worked as a coach when I was younger and the number of people who hurt themselves this way is considerable, likewise for many completely preventable injuries at the gym. Usually people only turn to professional help once some damage is already done. To exemplify my point, the average BMI in the US is roughly between overweight and obese. If someone in that weight range decides that the treadmill is the way to turn their life around, they will most likely come away with serious injuries if they keep it up.
Suggesting activity is good, yes, but suggesting someone should start with lifting specifically when they have issues with their joints without any further context is moronic.
You might want to look into BPC-157
BPC 157 has little to no reliable data to say it works.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6WLUUia6qZjVredWBuOlr6
A fair amount of anecdotal data though, it has helped me and others that I know. While the effect is pretty mild it is positive. Having a lifelong chronic condition I’m very sensitive to changes and have no discernible placebo effect. I’ve tried so many things that my prior belief when trying something new is that it wont work, so it’s a nice unexpected surprise when it does.
Ghosts have a fair amount of anecdotal data. Homeopathy has a fair amount of anecdotal data.
I am aware of survivorship bias but for that to apply BPC157 would have to be killing people, this peptide is widely used so if it was killing people we would know due to investigations into their deaths.
People usually hear about this stuff peer to peer and they report back to their peers if it helped or not, so there is a before and after, and for those people there isn’t a selection criteria biased on success. If people don’t report back then others become very interested in why.
I don't think "ghosts" was meant to imply the compound is killing people, just give an example of something people believe in without scientific evidence.
Fair point, I did misread the comment as a selection bias as opposed to a 'Reductio ad absurdum' argument.
Insulin and Ozempic are both bioactive peptides, which is not to say BPC157 is anywhere as strong as either of them, but it's not easily dismissed either. Nowhere near the absurdities of ghosts and homeopathy.
Ok, fine, compare it instead to misleading anecdotal evidence surrounding dietary supplements. We know vitamins(/minerals/whatever) are compounds that are strictly necessary for life. We know that some health outcomes are tied to deficiencies or surpluses of these molecules. We know that in some, very specific cases, a disease is most effectively treated with OTC supplements.
We also know that, despite the vast quantities of anecdotal evidence readily available, taking 500% of your recommended daily value of Vitamin C will not actually effect the duration of your upper-respiratory tract infection. In fact, even ignoring the quality control issues in many commercial supplements, sometimes you can't even treat the deficiency of a specific nutrient with oral supplementation. And yet, again, many people will happily attest to the lifechanging benefits of supplementation to counteract a deficiency they likely never had.
Ok, some people are crazy therefore all anecdotal data is useless? Seems like a bit of a stretch. Someone tells you the weather is nice outside do you demand to see a peer reviewed study to that effect?
Killing people? So bad at reading for comprehension and science.
Most of the stuff online is overpriced and beyond the mitochondrial enzyme absorption spectrum, I can't find any reasonable mechanism for action.
I think your hesitance is valid
You seem like you’re hoping someone will convince you to try it. Why don’t you get a cheap one and give it a shot and see if you feel any different?
I have been wanting one of these and on multiple occasions tried to find some good quality lights. I have not been able to find one that I feel is trustworthy. Do you have any EU based recommendations?
get a broad spectrum red light bulb, that is most well understood and is least risky. Cons is the targetted spectrum would be only a small portion of it but good thing is it is a 4$ cheap test. It worked for me for smaller issues, like minor burns, cuts etc.
I typically don’t buy things unless I feel they have some utility, and it seems the cheap ones likely don’t do enough to notice.
Build your own. But direct from Alibaba or mouser or digikey.
The main science behind it is to hit the absorption peaks of a mitochondrial enzyme. You can make em bright, but be limited on how long you can use it, or dim and be forced to use it constantly for the same effect.
Pulse width modulation is very important in this for penetration. High intensity allows for deeper penetration, but heats up cells causing stress. The ideal scenario is a really strong light, run at a really low duty cycle, allowing for both intensity AND low average wattage, this lessening thermal issues
There might be other mechanisms of actions, as there are so many papers that say "light good", but until they can give a mechanism of action, I'm sticking with what I know
Light is light.
Some wavelengths don't penetrate so deep, and not all bulbs are the same brightness.
I've seen obvious lies on some product descriptions on internet listings, therefore I wouldn't trust a specification claim like "x nm" or "y lumen", and unless I had tools to measure them I would not rely on them meeting those specifications.
Lumen does not measure much red light.
Lumens being perceputual brightness means any package listing it for IR is definitely lying; but that only makes it a first-pass filter, "no false positives" does not mean "no false negatives".
e.g. even when it's about visible light, well, do you trust this claim of 500,000 lumen?: https://www.amazon.de/Shadowhawk-Rechargeable-Extremely-Wate...
> do you trust this claim of 500,000 lumen?
Having watched Torque Test Channel test[0] these[1] kinds[2] of claims, no, no I do not.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp8dumORMA0
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPQKeeYTfo
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceA5xL6ggEw
Yeah but like, don't buy from temu or something, buy from digikey etc and just wire it yourself, its cheap enough to be able to fail 20 times without costing more than a burger.
Just go outside, there is lots of IR out there. If it feels good then get whatever gadget you want to emulate it inside.
They didn't have any controls with a different wavelength of light. They might as well be measuring a diurnal pattern.
There seem to be very similar studies with the same conclusion.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/3-minutes-of-deep-...
The source for your link is the same article being discussed here.
But given how simple their light setup is, they could easily have added a control group.
I think the point of wanting a control is still valid. Science always benefits from having a control
Another:
"Red (660 nm) or near-infrared (810 nm) photobiomodulation stimulates, while blue (415 nm), green (540 nm) light inhibits proliferation in human adipose-derived stem cells" (2017) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07525-w
TIL it's called "red light optogenetics" even when the cells aren't modified for opto-activation.
And,
"Green light induces antinociception via visual-somatosensory circuits" (2023) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221112472...
"Infrared neural stimulation in human cerebral cortex" (2023) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X2... :
> In a comparison of electrical, optogenetic, and infrared neural stimulation, Roe et al. [14] found that all three approaches could in principal achieve such specificity. However, because brain tissue is conductive, it can be challenging to confine neuronal activation by traditional electrical stimulation to a single cortical column. In contrast, optogenetic stimulation can be applied with high spatial specificity (e.g. by delivering light via a 200um fiber optic apposed to the cortex) and with cell-type specificity (e.g. excitatory or inhibitory cells); however, optogenetics requires viral vectors and gene transduction procedures, making it less easy for human applications [15]. Over the last decade, infrared neural stimulation (INS), which is a pulsed heat-mediated approach, has provided an alternative method of neural activation. Because brain tissue is 75% water, infrared light delivered near peak absorption wavelengths (e.g. 1875 nm [16]) permits effective delivery of heat to the brain tissue. In particular, experimental and modelling studies [[17], [18], [19]] have shown that 1875 nm light (brief 0.5sec trains of 0.25msec pulses forming a bolus of heat) effectively achieves focal (submillimeter to millimeter sized) activation of neural tissue
Does NIRS -based (neuro-) imaging induce neuronal growth?
Are there better photonic beam-forming apparatuses than TI DLP projectors with millions of tiny actuated mirrors; isn't that what a TV does?
Cold plasma also affects neuronal regrowth and could or should be used for wound closure. Are they cold plasma-ing Sam (Hedlund) in "Tron: Legacy" (2010) before the disc golf discus thing?
Does cold plasma reduce epithelial scarring?
A certain duration of cold plasma also appears to increase seed germination rate FWIW.
To find these studies, I used a search engine and search terms and then picked studies which seem to confirm our bias.
I've seen plenty of red light exposure masks / therapies / tools being sold for absurdly high prices. I'm pretty suspicious of them, not least because I don't know much of anything about this area.
Has anyone gone down the rabbit hole here and have genuine product recommendations that roughly satisfy the conditions laid out in the paper? * Wavelength: 650–900 nm red light * Power output: 8 mW/cm² * Misc design choices: e.g. light diffusers * what other considerations???
I know some old eastern europeans who just swear by the red heat lamp. Like a big hot bulb akin to something for rotisserie chicken. I imagine its like a targeted hot tub in terms of muscle relief.
I would not recommend applying a heat lamp to your eyes.
I actually found the cheapest and best solution: getting 30 minutes of direct sunlight every day
Challenge there is limiting exposure to damaging UV rays while maximizing near IR
Perineum?
You won’t get an answer. They’ve been arrested for indecent exposure
I think shorts and minimal top would suffice lol
There are some infrared masks which gently warm the eyelids to "melt" the meibomian oil in the eyes, which improves lubrication and can really help with dry eyes and associated fatigue. No clue about their wavelengths, but those are generally pretty cheap.
These people have been doing clinical work for 30 years. check the Science and webinar tabs in the top menu. PBM works for me. Make up your own mind... FDA Clinical grade equipment is not cheap. https://bioflexlaser.com/ They developed a consumer line of equipment last year. https://bioflexwave.com/ Nano will work for PTNS (and more). I have no financial relationship with these people but so far the equipment cost is worth the help with medical issues.
Mitsubishi makes the best leds. get ones made by them. the rest can be driven by whatever
Maybe, maybe not. At power levels high enough to be therapeutic you’re gonna want to think about cooling.
I recently bought a panel on AliExpress for much cheaper than most of the branded one. There's not really reason for them to lie about the wavelength of the LEDs, so build quality is really the only risk factor.
just lie about the led itself as that is the costly component. Who is gonna measure wavelengths and hold them accountable? its a no brainer move to scam the most expensive component that also is hard to verify
Are LED's particularly costly though? Does one wavelength of red LED differ significantly in price from another wavelength of red LED? And does that even matter that much? It seems like higher wavelength has deeper penetration, but how deep you want depends on use case.
You would get deeper penetration from very high power leds driven intermittently though.
So there may be a very different grade of led in the pricy stuff.
i bought https://platinumtherapylights.com/products/bio-rlt?variant=1... during the pandemic, it has held up.
In addition to the DIY options in this thread, there's a UK vendor selling an LED light in eyeglass frame, for weekly 3-min use. Has anyone tried it?
> eyepower was set up initially as as a division of Planet Lighting in early 2020 with the aim of designing and developing a mass-market product that would allow individuals to take advantage of recent research in to the beneficial effects of deep red light on long term eye health. With the help and guidance of key academics at the forefront of red light therapy and industry professionals, eyepower succeeded in bringing a product to market in June 2022. Within 6 months of launch, the company had sold over 2,500 units to customers around the globe.https://www.eye-power.co.uk/ (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43086073)
I have to wonder if sitting by a fire at night is analogous.
I remember reading somewhere that it is analogous to closing your eyes under the sun, as your eyelids only allow some wavelengths of sunlight. Not sure if that's accurate.
The transmittance of light through the human eyelid is about two orders of magnitude greater at the start of the near-IR (~700) nm than it is at 450nm. [1]
[1] "Measuring and predicting eyelid spectral transmittance" Journal of Biomedical Optics, Vol. 16, Issue 6, 067011 (June 2011) https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3593151
It's quite analogous, especially for ideal intensity
Bright enough to warm the body, but not thermally stress the cells.
And yeah, closing your eyelids would block UV light from getting in and cross linking proteins and causing cataracts, while still allowing for NIR light to get in and speed up the mitochondria.
Analogous for sure
So, to replicate the results of this study how long would a person have to do this each (morning?)?
Not exactly a scientific experiment, but based on this video it seems like fire would have significantly less visible intensity for it to make a meaningful difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBL3NdIK4DI
From my experience, fire infrared light can be stronger than the sun. I used to
have occasional pain in my left knee, but resolved it by one or two really hot
sessions at the chimney(I nearly burned myself lol so it has to be really hot in
order to get rid of chronical pain). Knee pain is gone now. I have read a theory
of the vagus nerve sending harmful substances produced by the microbiome in the
bowels to the knee to prevent it going to the brain. The useful compounds get
teleported to the brain(we got no clue how the vagus nerve does it, but if you
lack a functioning vagus nerve the transportation ceases).
Weirdly they didn't test nighttime exposure as an intervention. OK, "weird" means probably it was costly/hard to get people into a lab setting at 9pm... But it does make you wonder!
A different study found that red light helps only if it precedes exposure to blue light, blue light and UV light being the main sources of (oxidative) stress on the retina. Knowing that is probably why they didn't bother testing night-time exposure.
Some believe that the reason red light helps is that cytochrome C oxidase can use the red light to convert serotonin to melatonin and that melatonin is the most important anti-oxidant in the human body. (Under this model, melatonin cannot get into the mitochondria, but serotonin can.)
A few decades ago I had this mysterious sunny morning with colors 10 times brighter than usual. I never managed to figure it out, now the only things I remember are that the curtains were open, the sun came in, I had a dark red box next to my bed that I must have looked at for 20-30 seconds because the color was so absurdly vivid, then I looked at a gold lamp on top and thought woah! The effect persisted for a while, everything in my house looked different. I've also noticed changes in my vision when sleeping in different places.
What little I remember it sure fits your description. I might try hooking up a red heat lamp to a timer as an alarm clock to see what happens.
Sounds like Chimerical colors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color#Chimerical_co...
I bought an infrared parabolic heater to test this out once, as a friend made a comment insinuating that more time in front of fire meant a better sleep. I ran it for a few days, but the results were mixed and inconclusive.
I suspect because the longer IR wavelengths just heat the body up, it's hard to get enough of the more "useful" wavelengths without overheating
what about the sun?
Sun is good, but has limitations
It has UV, which stresses out the cells You can't PWM the sun, it's hard to get full naked coverage in front of it. Doesn't perfectly target NIR or NIR-II biological windows.
But for a base/starter, it can't be beat.
Simply put, light is better than no light.
I don’t think people realize how much brighter the sun is than almost all other light sources in their life.
LED headlights in some vehicles are a close second.
What is sun?
Relevant comment about 850nm light: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042852
My wife has a "Dr Dennis Gross Red Light Mask" that has a setting for 650nm + 850nm red light. Supposed to help with aging or something but the specs match up perfectly.
Probably way too expensive for people to buy for this purpose(probably too expensive for skin care too, it's just a mask with red LED's, if I knew that's what she was buying I probably would've just made one. That's probably why she didn't tell me). Anyway, for anyone out there looking to buy a product, it's worth checking if your wife/gf already has something. Lots of products like this for anti aging as well as for hair growth
$20 of LEDS stuck on a flex PCB molded to a $10 plastic mask, with a $3 power supply sold for $450.
I have been telling myself for years I need to start building an selling these things.
Do you think it works? You can be honest here.
Husband alarm activated:
Thanks for the pointer!
Someone there links to this, surprisingly affordable, product: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075F7NV56
Are there any valid safety concerns with this? Or is it just the simple check: "as long as the wattage is low enough, it's fine."
My experience with evaluating consumer medical devices ("lifestyle" and "fitness") is that what is on the box is often not what the device actually does. Besides wavelength and wattage, you would probably need to check for consistency, whether there aren't any spikes, etc. I don't know how much IR light is dangerous for the brain / what tolerances are acceptable.
I would not use it without proper eye protection for that particular wavelength. Staring into an infrared light will probably negatively affect your eyesight. As the eyes cannot see it, your pupil will not react and you also can't judge how bright it is.
What about putting it to the side at a 60 degree angle?
The FOV of your eyes is insane, you have usable retina more than 90 degrees off center. If you want to avoid illuminating your eyes, you need to avoid illuminating your face.
More is not better. Research suggests optimal mJ/c^2/s dosages for each wavelength. Stuff on amazon is not going to be calibrated at all to dosage or even wavelength. Aside from being ineffective, there aren't dangerous side effects except prolonged exposure if staring into high intensity NIR.
Can you explain more about optimal dosages and which products deliver those dosages? We get about 0.05 J/cm²/s of infrared irradiance from natural sunlight, so we'd probably want to be at that level, or above but less than an order of magnitude above it?
One challenge is the irradiance drops off as a square a distance. So like 5 inch away vs 1 inch away is a difference of 25x irradiance.
I came here to link this. @manmal was truly ahead of their time.
My head canon is that sitting around drinking tea and watching the sunset is what humans need most…
for whatever it’s worth, I have found a lot of meaning in sunset runs.
So many grifters in this space.
Someone I know desperately bought a $8000 red light therapy gun pitched to her by a chiropractor to help her father who had catastrophic brain damage from a stroke. :/
The gun has a dial on the side that lets you cycle through "Cancer", "Chronic pain", "Acute pain", and other ailments.
https://neuro-solution.com/
Whatever legitimacy red light therapy has, it's set back by the legion of people trying to make money selling confusing products, and it's hard to tell what's legitimate or not.
Between some red-colored LEDs glued inside an eye mask and those fan-cooled NIR array panels on aliexpress, what is legitimate and how do you tell? I think it's that confusion that seeds the field for people to say "none of it unless you're spending good money [on my product]."
I hate it, and I'd consider this a crime akin to theft. It's literally taking advantage of people who don't have the faculty to defend themselves, and capitalising on their human weakness.
From what I've read, it actually seems like a bad idea for cancer. Red light is not going to induce cancer like UV, but if cancer is already there, it'd get the same mitochondria boosting effect, essentially helping it grow more.
I don't know wether it's true or not, but I liked the red light, and my spouse too. It helps - improves mood, heals minor pain, calms you down, and warms you up. It also helps with falling taking naps if needed, I fell asleep faster. Lots of joy for $70. I found vintage Kenmore red lamp with red bulb on eBay. I find it better than LEDs, since it emits heat as well.
I use a 10,000 LUX light therapy lamp in the morning and it does wonders for my mood. When I started, colleagues commented on my better mood without knowing about the lamp (obviously). It is amazing how large of an effect light has on us.
This is basically a mini grow light right?
Yes, I think so.
Is that a red one? Or one of those "simulate the sun" full-spectrum ones?
It is the full-spectrum one, not red. I should have been clearer in my comment.
Anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt: I’ve used a pair of red light glasses from a Dr in the UK and saw noticeably improved vision.
With those the same amount of red light would have hit your retinas anyways, no?
Yes, pretty much I’d think—but less of the other wavelengths.
I imagine that this could serve as different enough input to matter. With the eyes being a very expensive and highly-strung instrument and all?
Probably the pupils dilate due to overall decrease in light intensity
>A single 3 min 670 nm morning exposure to the eye at energy levels approximately a log unit greater than found in environmental light
it sounds like getting up early and getting out like for a run can be beneficial in one more way.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Early-morning-6-am-relat... :
"Early morning (6 am) relative irradiance of the sun is higher in the visible and NIR spectrum compared to midday exposure (noon)"
Yes and before reading HN on a screen which is my habit, unfortunately.
Just need to redshift the screen. But the intensity will not be enough, unfortunately.
A single 3min 670nm morning exposure may be more valuable in latitudes where the sun does not rise until after 8AM.
The most important part of that paper is the first two sentences:
"Metabolic rate and ageing are both regulated by mitochondria. Mitochondrial membrane potential, however, declines with age resulting in reduced adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production, which is a major source of cellular energy. Cellular decline is further accelerated with ageing by increased production of pro-inflammatory reactive oxygen species (ROS)1."
Forget everything else. Why does "Exposure to long wavelength light (650–900 nm) in animals improves mitochondrial function, increasing ATP production and reducing ROS"? That is what needs to be figured out, because red light will not always increase ATP production and reducing ROS because we are all different. Genetics, nutrition, it all plays a role.
It might be as well that red light helps in the short term but hurts in the long term.
On ATP, do you know what the real name for ATP is Mg-ATP, That is magnesium ATP. Not enough magnesium, not enough ATP. (I am in no way claiming that magnesium is a cure all, just making a point.) What reduces ROS? Selenium, magnesium, Catalase, etc...
While this site is particularly for me-cfs and long-covid illness, they do great analysis of many studies on a variety of subjects and recently red-light-therapy
* https://www.healthrising.org/blog/2024/12/10/red-light-thera...
Many independent studies, videos and panel buying comparisons on that page
Personally I'm still not completely convinced but cannot afford it anyway.
adding link to Red Light Therapy Shopping Tool:
* https://products.lighttherapyinsiders.com/
Where can we get such light? Is it basically what you'd get from warming yourself in the sun?
Facing the sun with closed eyelids would get you a lot of red light in the generally correct spectrum
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biome...
Probably wouldn’t do it for more than 10 mins
Looks really interesting. Wondering if I would need special equipment like they describe in order to hit the intensity they describe specifically on the cornea or if it would be effective enough to buy a 670nm red light bulb and sit near it in an otherwise dark room in the morning?
We have some of these devices (not affiliated with the company) [1] for general consumption, and also for dentists and physician in the family. Also a very complete book [2]. I am talking as a layman since I am not in that field.
[1] https://weberlasersystems.com/
[2] https://weberlasersystems.com/products/book
I like to read book in the dark with the red LED on my headtorch (so as not to bother gf) before I go to sleep. It’s prob 630nm not 670 but I get about two pages in and fall instantly asleep. Can recommend
I do the exact same thing, and have the exact same result (my gf can't even tell it's on with her eyes closed). I use a Wurkkos HD15R, which according the manual uses a 660nm light (Luminus SST-20-DR-B120-V660), mainly got it for walking/camping but would recommend for any situation a light is needed.
Could you please link to the product. I have trouble sleeping. Am interested in trying this technique. Thanks in advance.
Here is the recipe. Don't skip any steps
- Your room must be cold. If you stand around in the room you should feel kind of chilly
- Your room should be quiet. If you have loud A/C which turns on and off that's a problem c.f. step 1 -- think hard about how to meet both requirements given your personal situation/constraints
- Your room must be dark. Not necessarily pitch black but dark. No blinking LEDs.
- A couple hours before bed, remind your brain that it is soon time to sleep
- Your phone must not be in the room with you. Your phone sleeps in the kitchen. I cannot emphasize this enough. It's OK you are going to have a nice book to read instead
- You need a real physical book. Books are cheap and make you more sexy and smarter. No Kindle
- Here's the book I'm reading: https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/gormenghast/
- This is the headlamp I use: https://www.pelican.com/us/en/product/flashlights/headlamp/2...
- There's nothing special about that headtorch -- there are hundreds of head torches you can buy with a red ~630nm LED. it's the standard red color LED. It would be interesting to swap it out for the 670nm wavelength described in the article though!
- Actually that model is pretty heavy and just happens to be the one I bought for camping -- you could do a lot better/smaller/lighter e.g. Nitecore NU25, Black Diamond Spot 350
- You will feel like a clown when you put the headtorch on. That's okay -- you read books and sleep well, making you very attractive in the daytime. It's OK to look like a clown at nighttime
- You are going to sleep on your back. You can do this, I believe in you. You are going to sleep positioned like Tutankhamun and for nearly as long
- You need a reasonably firm pillow and you need to set it up right. It needs to support your neck and stop you rolling on your side. None of this foam bullshit it needs to have feathers in it. You are a human being not a cellphone. You don't sleep on plastic
- OK let's get this bread. You lie down you turn off all the lights and you turn on your cool little headtorch. You get your head very well positioned on the pillow. You are about to sleep like a boss, you're going to sleep like Genghis Khan. You better get those covers tight because it's fucking cold in your room. Then you start reading. Hell yeah this book is so good. It feels so natural and rewarding and you remember that people used to write in ways that are outside our grasp today, no LLM or modern author can touch it. Within a couple of pages your eyes are shut. You find yourself holding the book with your eyes closed, barely awake. At that moment boom you put down the book, ideally switch off the headtorch, and disappear
Thanks.
I found this: https://www.amazon.com/Deep-Red-670nm-Wavelength-Flashlight/...
Cool
I can't seem to find any 670nm headlamps.
Question: do you know how you know that the headlamp you own is 630nm? Thanks.
I don't know that for sure but 630nm is much more common. Look at the wavelength column here, it's all ~630nm:
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/filter/led-indication-di...
Given that I'd be very surprised if my crappy little head torch is 670nm.
If you can use a soldering iron I think it would be relatively straightforward to modify an off-the-shelf headlamp and swap out the diode.
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/filter/led-indication-di...
I have one of those https://www.eye-power.co.uk/
While I like the sensation using it I don't feel any noticeable effect.
How old are you? What drove you to buy these?
Would you presumable get the same effects from sun bathing since the sunlight probably contains that frequency?
I use a Windows app called SunsetScreen [1] to make my screen warm.
Anyone have any idea if it contributes a lot of i̶n̶f̶r̶a̶-̶r̶e̶d̶ red light that way?
[1] https://sunsetscreen.en.softonic.com/
No the wattage used in clinical phototherapy is much higher and concentrated in specific bands.
My much less powerful home phototherapy light weighs about 20 lbs and I have to cover my eyes with multiple layers to use it.
It does not. The red pixels don’t get any redder, it’s just turning down the other ones. These being LEDs, it has a sharp spike in the visual spectrum instead of a black-body curve that would cross into infrared.
670nm is still visible red light. Infra-red starts at wave lengths above 750
Can I do this with an LED strip and maybe home assistant in my office?
Dumb question, if you fill the monitor/display with rgb(232, 0, 0) would it emit 670nm light or is it not strong enough? Could one benefit from red curtains or wall paper?
Is this true only for vision? Mitochondria are in other places too
There is a large amount of evidence for red light therapy for all parts of the body.
A large amount of mostly inconclusive evidence!
I don't know why the people running red light studies hate control groups so much. If you do that many studies, varying wave length and intensity for some of them should be trivial. Yet somehow they almost never do that.
So: 90W mask or 1500W panel? Infrared, red light, or does yellow work just as well, maybe?
The people doing near-UV therapy for skin conditions managed to do all that. There's a know effective wave length (it's always 311nm), there's dosage plans. There's licenced medical devices doing the irradiation. IR people seem less interested in all that.
So the idea is to create "original ideal environments" for these little critters, to reduce their need to migrate to the skin and back?
Alot of these devices are quite expensive. Would it be possible to purchase the LEDs and create a sort of guerrilla red light therapy device?
670nm is 670nm, no matter the marketing and/or medical certifications & approvals
In theory. In practice without testing there's no guarantee you're getting only 670nm light. I can make a brilliant 670nm source that also douses you with 385nm light.
A spectroscope is a handheld optical device which allows you to see the light distribution coming from a light source. Should be able to pick one up for under a hundred bucks.
I've actually looked into this in the past (for measuring the spectra of LED bulbs), but they're significantly more expensive than I expected! Gratings are cheap, but digital models seem to run upwards of $2k. Any suggestions for midrange models would be appreciated!
Mid level, $750: https://www.aseq-instruments.com/LR1.html
Entry (?) untested, $350: https://thunderoptics.fr/product/sma-e-spectrometer/
Thank you!
Save money and go analog! Calibrate against a known spectrum. One example would be a sodium vapour street light but there aren't as many around these days.
Not really. In practice, the vast majority of LED producers provide the Spectral Power Distribution in the datasheet.
Agreed, but I'd also argue that's what medical certs and approvals are doing in this setting.
Guerrilla? Like you mean to jump out of tree cover and shine red light at people randomly?
I'm wondering what wavelengths our monitors / phones have. I always thought of flux (the app) that it is reducing blue light. But keeping the red part may be just as important.
For anyone interested, here is a short vid on how to color your iphone screen red: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omuGVs7eP-A
Has anyone had success for sports injuries like tennis elbow or is a heating pad just as good?
Would it work with a red translucid film taped to a regular white lamp/LED?
Red light therapy is vasty undervalued among the techie longevity crowd I know when compared to supplements, perhaps because of the large initial cost and lower portability of systems.
The evidence seems stronger than for most supplements people take, for everything from hair loss to collagen production to soften tissue repair to brain function.
Red light has a negligible effect on hair loss compared to Rogaine (minoxidil), after reading many papers about this. Not sure about the other claims, but they also seem unlikely.
I think one of the issues is how over priced most of the panels are. You're paying an arm and a leg for lots of little red lights. Nothing more.
I thought they were overpriced until I looked into building one myself. The heat sinks were going to be really expensive. The LEDs and lenses weren't cheap either.
Any evidence on this? It sounds too good to be true.
[dead]
Does this mean I shouldn’t wear the protective glasses when doing red light therapy?
I think a good rule of thumb is to stop if it hurts. I presume you're not using a laser. Your eyes are pretty good at telling you when something is too much
so.. resurrect the dark(red) room for paper-photo-development.. and go there in 9.AM ?
too bad the dark red bulb was thrown away together with all the other no-use-anymore equipment..
(2021)
Right now I'm wishing I had a transparent skull
Try a stronger dye?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-024-01675-z
I remember reading about this wrt red light improving healing of burn victims.
[dead]
[dead]
Do you use one of their devices? Can you say anything about the experience?