5 Likes
But besides some anecdotal suggestions: there are no studies supporting that suggestion. There are studies suggesting high amounts of NIR exposure upregulates different MMP’s in similar ways to high amounts of sun exposure.
1 Like
@Pat25 Again, my suggestion that you want the light to be close to the skin is because the intensity decreases the farther away you’re from the light source. This is based on the basic science of how light works. Sure, if you have a VERY strong light source, then you don’t have to be so close to it.
Also, I understand that there is more red/IR light in the sunlight at dawn and dusk. So there are suggestions that it’s beneficial to be outside at those times so you can be exposed to red/IR light.
Check out before and after pictures from Omnilux. Omnilux says that their products are FDA approved. I tried their products but prefer other companies (partly because they’re very expensive and partly because of different designs).
By the way, the way red/IR light works is not just MMP. There’s a lot of stuff going on in the skin when exposed to them.
Theories for how red/IR light is beneficial:
One of the most important chromophores is cytochrome c oxidase (unit IV in the mitochondrial respiratory chain), which contains both heme and copper centers and absorbs light into the near-infra-red region. The leading hypothesis is that the photons dissociate inhibitory nitric oxide from the enzyme, leading to an increase in electron transport, mitochondrial membrane potential and ATP production. Another hypothesis concerns light-sensitive ion channels that can be activated allowing calcium to enter the cell. After the initial photon absorption events, numerous signaling pathways are activated via reactive oxygen species, cyclic AMP, NO and Ca2+, leading to activation of transcription factors. These transcription factors can lead to increased expression of genes related to protein synthesis, cell migration and proliferation, anti-inflammatory signaling, anti-apoptotic proteins, antioxidant enzymes.
1 Like
Sure, that’s why I bought a panel - because of potential health benefits mentioned in studies. I was only saying that imho, and as some studies suggest: too much of a good thing is not necessarily a good thing.
Yes, agreed. That’s why don’t exceed 20 minutes per treatment session or the amount of time recommended by the manufacturer.
Don’t you want to stop one and figure it out?
1 Like
Here’s a good article on light therapy dosing.
Whatever the light source, some people notice tremendous results, while others might not notice much at all.
The most common reason for this discrepancy is a lack of knowledge about dose. To be successful with light therapy, you first need to know how strong your light is (at different distances), and then how long to use it for.
Most review articles and educational material tends to claim a dose in the range of 0.1J/cm² to 6J/cm² is optimal for cells, with less doing nothing and much more cancelling out the benefits.
However, some studies find positive results in much higher ranges, such as 20J/cm², 70J/cm², and even as high as 700J/cm². It’s possible that a deeper systemic effect is seen at the higher doses, depending on how much energy is applied in total to the body. It could also be that the higher dose is effective because the light penetrates deeper. Getting a dose of 1J/cm² in the top layer of skin will only take seconds. Getting a dose of 1J/cm² in deep muscle tissue could take 1000 times as long, requiring 1000J/cm²+ on the skin above.
Another quote from the same website but a different article:
Frequency of use and length of use depends on the quality of your light therapy device. Most on the market are too weak to have any real effect.
1 Like
I’m known with his website - Red Light Man has sold panels/lamps for years. Indeed: most sellers of panels/brand names say the higher power intensity, the better. You can find thousands of such claims of sellers of lamps/panels. (And as you will also notice when you will look at their prices - the higher power density, the more expensive the panels/lamps. Up to panels with an increasingly high power density going for over a thousand of dollars). Fact remains that studies show upregulation of different MMP’s with high doses of (N)IR, similar to high amounts of sun exposure. And some of these panels, as research also indicates, radiate amounts of NIR much higher than what you’d get when sun bathing around the equator. I’ve cited these studies in another thread about the same subject.
Perhaps indeed it is not a potential concern to put such devices in direct contact with your skin for 20 minutes. But I remain the fact that there is no research showing the longterm effects of this (with the exception of local treatment with LLLT (Low level laser therapy), so personally I’m not willing to try. If according to you there is such research, I’d be very interested in reading it and I hope you’d post it.
1 Like
I understand your concern. Omnilux lists a lot of studies on their website (linked below). Feel free to review them if you like.
I’m not trying to convince you to use products such as red light masks. That’s your call. What I’m trying to do is offering you a potential explanation as to why you may not be seeing much change to your skin from using your panel as it may not be providing sufficient light on your skin.
I have seen positive results from using the devices in the past year. Other users of products like Omnilux have also reported positive results. If you don’t believe my and other users’ experiences, again, that’s your call.
Based on research in this area (which has been ongoing for decades), red/IR light is very safe because they have long wavelengths and therefore low energy. Blue light, on the other hand, has short wavelength and therefore higher energy, is the one that I would be cautious about. Even then, blue light is routinely used to treat acne.
1 Like
Let’s conclude we differ opinions as this ongoing debate may not really go anywhere. I’m happy it works for you: that’s great to hear. I still hope to one day see some pictures that convince me of the same.
I’ll keep at this, but in your post you are citing anecdotal evidence and refer to claims/pictures of companies that sell these panels (and I’ve never seen any pictures that convinced me of these miraculous changes people claim to see), but no study results.
I am aware that there is research; for several reasons I’ve been interested in this topic for a long time. The research has indeed been ongoing for decades, but not with (infra)red light panels or mats with LEDs as you seem to suggest. The studies that “have been ongoing for decades” were initially with low level laser therapy (LLLT), later also called “Photobiomodulation” (PBM). (And treatment with LEDs is now also commonly called “PBM”). Obviously the (treatment) parameters in these studies with LLLT differed greatly from the suggestions you are making based on recommendations from brands that sell these panels and lamps. (But I am aware a lot of brands use these LLLT and Photobiomodulation studies to make their claims about potential results). In these studies they used LLLT locally, as mentioned, commonly to try to treat potential health issues. Not only that, but the laser beam divergence of course is not comparable to LEDs (incoherent waveforms) used in these panels/mats. That laser treatment was used locally may be a good thing though, looking at those studies that conclude (N)IR results in upregulation of different MMPs. But all in all, when you refer to “decades of ongoing research” you are comparing apples to pears. Since as mentioned a few times: these studies showing what the effects are on ‘skin quality’/collagen synthesis of using whole body panels/mats with LEDs with such high power density over a longer period of time, don’t exist as far as I’m aware. (There are only two small trials sponsored by companies that sell these lamps, as far as I’m aware, wherein it was suggested it could increase collagen synthesis). And as said: I’d be very interested to see them posted in this thread, if those studies do exist according to you. Again referring to the other topic that did discuss high power density LEDs (N)IR can result in upregulation of different MMPs, and that in my humble opinion: caution may be warranted until those studies have been conducted.
3 Likes
I’ve done extensive research myself as I want to know the treatment is safe. I’m also aware of the different terms that are used to describe this type of treatment. Laser is way stronger than LED, so in theory LED is safer than laser. And most products on the market use LED.
Red light has so many effects on the tissue, not just MMP. By the way, I just saw an article that says that red light actually DECREASED MMP-1.
Red light irradiation retarded the cumulative low-dose UVA irradiation-induced skin photoaging, decreased the expression of senescence-associated β-galactosidase, upregulated SIRT1 expression, decreased matrix metalloproteinase MMP-1 and the acetylation of p53 expression, reduced the horizon of cell apoptosis and enhanced cell viability.
2 Likes
I’ll just copy my previous post in another thread here. Albeit admittedly I don’t have the time to keep this discussion going, and appreciate our opinion on this topic differs.
"The claims in this study are in line with other studies that indicate that infrared light in certain doses upregulates different MMP’s. I could have cited another study, but they are not difficult to find.
Indeed: the shorter wavelengths IR-A will have different effects. But studies suggest that exposure to not only IR-B, but also IR-A induces expression of different MMP’s. It seems your suggestion is that if one exposes him-/herself solely to specific wavelengths of IR-A, this induction of MMP-expression all of a sudden would not be present?
It is known hat UV-radiation and visible light (VL) upregulate different MMP’s. Studies have also shown that heat shock can induce the expression of MMP’s. IR light of course generates and conducts heat; the amount of which will vary depending on many factors, such as wavelength, and the effects will obviously also depend on power density and distance of the source, etc. Still, with all this knowledge we do have, personally I don’t understand how one would all of a sudden conclude that a LED-panel that irradiates a lot of (specific wavelengths of) IR-A light would not provoke any such response. Do you feel we can conclude this because the studies with these panels are still lacking?
Joovv claims their newest panels have a power density of >100mw/cm2. (Of course if you keep more distance from the panel you’d expose yourself to less radiation - which is why I’m stating that may be a good idea. But imho: you’d rather buy a panel with a lower power density in the first place for a fraction of the price).
The leds of Joovv’s panels are within the lower end of the IR-A spectrum, as are the leds of most commercially sold panels. But if one were to follow Joovv’s recommendations you’d get a lot higher amount of IR-A than you’d get if you go outdoors on a sunny day, even around the equator. Indeed, as mentioned: the studies with these panels are lacking and I doubt we will see any independent research anytime soon. Research with regard to the effects of IR-A is also conflicting. But given the information we do have and the information that is lacking, I personally think caution is warranted until we hopefully know more.
“Skin exposure to infrared (IR) radiation should be limited in terms of irradiance, exposure time and frequency in order to avoid acute or chronic damage. Recommendations aimed at protecting humans from the risks of skin exposure to IR (e.g. ICNIRP, ACGIH) are only defined in terms of acute effects (e.g. heat pain and cardiovascular collapse), whereas the actual exposure conditions (e.g. spectral distribution, exposure geometry, frequency and number of exposures, thermal exchange with the environment, metabolic energy production and regulatory responses) are not taken into consideration. Since the IR component of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is mainly IR-A, and considering the increased use of devices emitting artificially generated IR-A radiation, this radiation band is of special interest. A number of in vitro and/or in vivo investigations assessing cellular or tissue damage caused by IR-A radiation have been undertaken. While such studies are necessary for the development of safety recommendations, the results of measurements undertaken to examine the interaction between skin and IR radiation emitted from different sources presented in this study, together with the detailed examination of the literature reveals a wide spectrum of contradictory findings, which in some instances may be related to methodological shortcomings or fundamental errors in the application of physical and photobiological laws, thus highlighting the need for physically and photobiologically appropriate experiments.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43246206_Effects_of_Infrared-A_Irradiation_on_Skin_Discrepancies_in_Published_Data_Highlight_the_Need_for_an_Exact_Consideration_of_Physical_and_Photobiological_Laws_and_Appropriate_Experimental_Settings
“For many years skin aging has primarily been attributed to the effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. More recently it has become evident that other parts of solar radiation, especially infrared A (IR-A) 760-1440 nm and infrared B (IR-B) 1440-3000 nm, induce significant free radicals in the dermis and up-regulate matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that degrade collagen fibers. This suggests that IR radiation may be damaging to the skin barrier and compromise its function. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of IR radiation on skin physiology, specifically, evaluating changes in skin barrier function, inflammatory response, and levels of extracellular matrix proteins. Human reconstructed MatTek skin models were exposed to physiologically relevant doses of IR radiation, after which changes in barrier function were assessed by measuring transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER), transepidermal water loss (TEWL), and penetration of a fluorescein fluorescent marker through skin models; inflammatory response and ECM proteins were measured using ELISA assays for IL-1α, MMP-9, and procollagen production. Results showed that exposure of skin models to physiological doses of IR resulted in (1) reduced barrier properties of skin, as shown by significant reductions in TEER (p<0.01) and increases in TEWL (p<0.01) and fluorescein penetration (p<0.01) at higher IR doses, (2) significant reduction in procollagen production (p<0.01) and increases in MMP-9 production, and (3) increases in skin inflammatory response, indicated by significantly greater IL-1α levels (p<0.05). In addition to elucidating the harmful effects of IR irradiation on skin barrier function, the techniques presented here provide useful methods that can be extended beyond the scope of this study to evaluate ways of protecting skin from the damage caused by exposure to IR.”
“Sunlight damages human skin, resulting in a wrinkled appearance. Since natural sunlight is polychromatic, its ultimate effects on the human skin are the result of not only the action of each wavelength separately, but also interactions among the many wavelengths, including UV, visible light, and infrared (IR). In direct sunlight, the temperature of human skin rises to about 40°C following the conversion of absorbed IR into heat. So far, our knowledge of the effects of IR radiation or heat on skin aging is limited. Recent work demonstrates that IR and heat exposure each induces cutaneous angiogenesis and inflammatory cellular infiltration, disrupts the dermal extracellular matrix by inducing matrix metalloproteinases, and alters dermal structural proteins, thereby adding to premature skin aging. This review provides a summary of current research on the effects of IR radiation and heat on aging in human skin in vivo .”
Effects of Infrared Radiation and Heat on Human Skin Aging in vivo
" Although many studies have been performed to elucidate the molecular consequences of ultraviolet irradiation, little is known about the effect of infrared radiation on skin aging. In addition to photons, heat is likely to be generated as a consequence of infrared irradiation, and heat shock is widely considered to be an environmental stress. Here we investigated the effect of heat shock on the expressions of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1, MMP-2, and MMP-3 in cultured human skin fibroblasts. Heat shock induced the expression of MMP-1 and MMP-3, but not MMP-2, at the mRNA and protein levels in a temperature-dependent manner, and caused the rapid activation of three distinct mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK), extracelluar signal-regulated kinase (ERK), c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), and p38 MAPK. The heat shock-induced MMP-1 and MMP-3 expression was suppressed by the inhibition of ERK and JNK but not by p38 MAPK inhibition. Furthermore, heat shock increased the synthesis and release of interleukin-6 (IL-6) into culture media. The specific inhibition of IL-6 using a monoclonal antibody against IL-6 greatly reduced the expression of MMP-1 and MMP-3 induced by heat shock. Taken together, our results suggest that ERK and JNK play an important role in the induction of MMP-1 and MMP-3 by heat shock and that the heat shock-induced expression of MMP-1 and MMP-3 is mediated via an IL-6-dependent autocrine mechanism."
2 Likes
Sash and Kandice both obviously have a great deal of knowledge on this topic. I really had heard little to nothing about this general area until I heard about it in a recent podcast (Huberman / Attia a month or so ago). I was surprised at that point to hear Huberman suggest that it had good evidence behind it (infrared light therapy) and that it was becoming more popular. I appreciate all the new information I’m getting from the posts in this thread and I’m learning a lot.
I forget exactly where the infrared-light reference (a short mention) was in this podcast - but here it is for anyone interested. A good podcast to listen to generally: Dr. Peter Attia: Exercise, Nutrition, Hormones for Vitality & Longevity | Huberman Lab Podcast #85 - YouTube
3 Likes
But you were referring to and making claims about potential benefits of such treatment with a LED panel/mat, based on research wherein laser is used - as a lot of companies selling these panels do. That is why I said it is comparing apples to pears (or oranges, if you will). I’m mostly taking issue, since these panels are commonly being sold based on these claims.
But then, as said repeatedly: we don’t have the studies that show the effects of using complete panels/mats with LEDs with high power density regularly for a long time over larger areas of the body. Even study authors say that caution is still warranted - as opposed to the companies selling these panels/mats.
I’m aware I’m keeping this discussion going also. But I’d love to be proven wrong - and see studies that do confirm the safety of using high amounts of NIR in direct contact with the skin regularly. At the same time I’m concerned that companies do make these suggestions, while studies are lacking. (Not in the least after having read anecdotal experiences that were disconcerting, but that I have not cited here since they were anecdotal after all. Fact is: we need the studies to be conducted).
Effects of IRA radiation on MMP-1 expression in human skin
“Exposure of cultured primary human dermal fibroblasts has previously been shown to induce MMP-1 mRNA and protein expression. To assess the in vivorelevance of these observations, in this study normal buttock skin of 23 healthy human volunteers was irradiated with a single dose of 360 or 720 J cm−2 IRA radiation (Tables 1, 2 and 3) and subsequently assessed for MMP-1 mRNA (n=15) or protein (n =8; 4 by western blotting and 4 by immunohistochemistry) expression. These doses were chosen, because they correspond to the dose of IRA radiation, which can be achieved in a few hours on a summer day in central Europe. Sensitivity towards IRA radiation, as defined by increased MMP-1 mRNA (>1.5-fold upregulation) or protein expression (>1.5-fold upregulation) was observed in 19/23 volunteers, that is, approximately 80%. As is shown in Figure 1a and Table 1, IRA responsiveness, as well as the magnitude of the response, showed marked interindividual variability. The latter varied from 3- to 14-fold upregulation, as compared with sham-irradiated skin of the same individuals. This variability did not correlate with skin type, sex, or age of the respective volunteers (Tables 1 and 3).”
" Materials and Methods
In vivo irradiation
All in vivo studies were carried out in adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki Principles and were approved by the local ethical committee of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, Germany. After obtaining informed consent, buttock skin of healthy human volunteers (n=32; non smokers, for further characteristics see Tables 1, 2 and 3) were exposed to a single dose of IRA radiation from a water-filtered IR-A irradiation source (Hydrosun 500; Hydrosun Medizintechnik, Müllheim, Germany). This device emits wavelengths between 760 and 1440 nm (Figure S1) without any contaminating UV radiation as controlled by means of a UVAMETER (Mutzhas, Munich, Germany) and a UV-Dosimeter Type II equipped with a UV6 sensor (Waldmann Medizintechnik, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany). The IRA output was determined with a Hydrosun HBM1 (Hydrosun Medizintechnik) measuring device and found to be 105 mW cm−2 at a lamp-to-target distance of 40 cm. The IRA radiation doses of 360–720 J cm−2 were applied in 57–114 minutes; none of the volunteers experienced extensive heating. For sham treatment, another area of buttock skin was treated completely identical, except that no IRA was applied. Twenty-four and 48 hours after irradiation, 4-mm punch biopsies were taken from IRA- and sham-irradiated skin sites. Samples were snap frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen until further analysis."
Here’s a study on Omnilux’ Contour Face Mask (which uses LED lights), posted on their website. There are pictures. There’s a long list of studies on LED lights on their website. This is the first one on the list.
2 Likes
Imho: it is not uncommon that there are reliability issues when it comes to ‘studies’ conducted and published by companies that sell products/treatments and have a vast interest in these products/treatments.
As a mere example, and admittedly I’ve not taken the time to look into their ‘study’ in more detail, so this is a first observation. But look at the difference in the blue standard the face of this lady is resting on and note the difference between the two pictures (in color, in texture, in reflection of/on that blue standard). What can be concluded from that difference, when it comes to potential differences this pictures shows in the face of the lady, before and after treatment. My first guess is that at the very least there are significant differences in lightning between the two pictures. To name a mere example.
1 Like
Your points about this study are valid. Other studies on the list re LED only have summaries and not full papers. I don’t have access to databases that allow me to get full papers. In any event, there seem to be a lot of studies on LED. Whether they’re up to your standards, I don’t know.
I appreciate you providing the information about IR.
I think the concern about IR is heat stress. This may be akin to sauna. Sauna also produces heat stress, which at an appropriate dose, is good for you (increases heat shock protein, etc.). But too much of it is bad for you. There were cases of people dying in sauna when they stayed in there too long. Anyways, when I do sauna, I only do 15 - 20 min. Incidentally, I noticed that sauna made my skin better, which I attribute to increased blood flow to skin to facilitate sweating.
Exercise also produces heat stress. And too much exercise is also not good.
To limit exposure, all my red light devices have timers - 20 min for all of them except one which is 15 min (that one has stronger lights).
4 Likes
I think you did a great job on the build. It looks good and the specs may be correct. I read the same book as Babster. He does spend a lot of time talking about intensity and distance and frequency. There is a lot to it. It wouldn’t surprise me if you are not getting the penetration you need to get a response.
This guy does a good job explaining how it could work:
Mechanisms and Mitochondrial Redox Signaling in Photobiomodulation
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/php.12864
He also talks about hormesis and the shape of the curve. I think it’s a good read.
Several years ago I got my first Sperti after reading Michael Hollick’s book “The Vitamin D Solution”. He was convincing that it is important to be exposed to light both for vitamin D but also for the many other things produced in the skin by the sun. But don’t stay out so long that you burn. The Sperti light will burn you if you stand too close. All I can say about this is that all my life I suffered from depression on and off and the light completely made it go away. I don’t know how or why and have not seen any papers about it.
Doubt it’s all in my head, but if a placebo works I’ll use it.
3 Likes
It would be interesting to do pre and post testing/analysis of facial skin using something like the Visia scanner to see how much of a difference this Infrared Light Therapy makes (and if its a measurable difference).
I was just reading Nick Engerer’s blog entry on this were they used it to measure the effects of the OS-1 skin cream. It would be interesting to do the same test with the rapamycin skin cream people here are using.
It seems that a lot of “spa” type offices are using these scanners now, in major metropolitan areas:
I am not saying red light therapy doesn’t work, but I am wondering if the cost and especially the time spent in front of red light therapy lights are worth it.
If you Google “red light therapy, before and after pictures” and then click on images you will see many images mainly posted by the companies selling red light therapy devices.
It is obvious that many of the pictures are enhanced by different before and after lighting, some use slightly out-of-focus after pictures that reduce the appearance of small wrinkles. Some use slightly different angles to reduce wrinkles. No way to tell if some of these are just plain fakes.
I don’t think many, if any, of these pictures used the VISIA® Skin Analysis System.
My skin is already very good for someone my age. I have achieved this by staying out of the sun for the last ~40 years and have been using Tretinoin and Rapamycin for the last year or so. I noticed significant improvement from the rapamycin which essentially cured my chronic actinic keratoses problems. After adding Tretinoin for only about a month I started to see fine lines disappear.
Rapamycin and Tretinoin are really great if you have any kind of sun-damaged skin.
Yes, I have read many papers and purchased books on red light therapy and I have a photometer that measures the intensity of the light from the red light device that I use.
So I don’t think I am using my red light therapy device wrong or the device is different from what the manufacturers of the red light therapy bulbs claims.
Again, I am not saying they don’t work, but the effect is subtle and takes a lot of time in front of the lamps to produce any visible effect.
3 Likes