Ulf
#21
Olafurpall, may I ask for your view on the desired size and wavelengths of the panel for reaping the various benefits of red light therapy? Given the apparent spreading of the effects, is targeting the forehead enough if the hoped for benefits include optimized cognition, or is a much larger area desirable for the skin and other effects?
The combination of around 660 and 850 nm seem to be the most common wavelengths, but two of the best studies I found on improved cognition used 1064 nm laser.
1 Like
I started red light at age 62, here are the results on free testosterone . Note SHBG also went up. Male. 15 minutes more or less daily on naked torso and back. Platinum 900 light.
4 Likes
Sure. The size of the panel depends on the size of the area you want to treat. If you want benefits for the skin you could do with a small panel the size of a head, if you only want to treat treat the skin on your head. But if you want to treat the whole body it’s much better to have a large panel or even 2 or more panels to cover a large area. Otherwise you would have to use the small panel on lots of different places to cover the whole body.
For cognition, studies indicate that you can definitely get some brain benefits by shining the light only on the forehead, but it’s better to hit a larger area, such as by shining on the forehead and also on the temples of the headm the back of the head and the top of it. This is actually more practical for people that are bald.
Regarding the wavelenghts. The optimal wavelengths are roughly either around 630-670 nm or 810-1080 nm or any combination of these. Yes, some studies have used 1064 for the brain, but 1064 isn’t any better than the 850-ish for the brain. Both are fine. The important thing when it comes to the wavelengths is that the red light (630-670 nm) will only penetrate skin deep while the infrared light (810-1080) will penetrate deeper. So if you want only skin benefits the red light is fine but for benefits deeper in the body (e.g. muscle, tendon, brain) you need the infrared light also.
7 Likes
It works both ways I find. I have a desktop lamp (~11 X 18 inches). At first it was a bother to have to do multiple body parts in sequentially. But now I find that the lamp size is perfect for fitting a flat panel directly over a curved body with many angles:
- Lay it flat on the floor to put my feet bottoms on it
- Put my legs up and rest the lamp over my knees
- Put the lamp on the arm rest of my chair and lean it against my shoulder: left then right
- lay the lamp in my lap as I press my elbow against the panel: left then right.
- Hold it against my forehead as I shine into my forehead and eyes. Then on one side of the head and then then the other
That would be 9 locations for 20 minutes each, or 3 hours. That amount of time I rarely have, even when I do other work while I bake (I have gotten many blisters over the 1+ years I’ve been doing it). I prioritize for pain relief (soreness from lifting). Maybe two lamps would be best.
2 Likes
Seems that something like a tanning bed fitted with red/infrared lights would get the whole body done efficiently. Anyone know of such a product?
It’s not that hard to make one. If money is no object or you have time constraints just buy one.
Making your own is about half the cost and of course there are many ways to customize it.
This is a picture of the one I made, posted earlier in another thread. It feels much like a tanning bed to me. I don’t know if it has any effect as I think the benefits are for long term use. I don’t have any joint or muscle pain, so I don’t know if it’s good for that. I do think it is having an effect on my skin, but it is subtle. Maybe red light therapy slows down the aging process. I don’t know.
I will continue to use this almost daily because lying under it with my eyes closed I can almost feel like I am at the beach.
Since I made this I have added a red light helmet that can be modulated by various frequencies for brain entrainment
Each bulb is 54 watts, so there is a total of 432 watts plus the panel at the foot which is another 45 watts. The manufacturer provides this radiance chart to help you calculate the amount of red light your skin receives at the distance you choose.
The two wavelengths are 660 and 850 nm.
When these lights wear out, which I don’t think is going to be anytime soon, I will replace the lamps with flat panels because they weigh less and provide more even illumination.
Flat panels have come down in price since I constructed this unit.
5 Likes
Nice setup! The biggest problem with your setup is that the light will only cover a small part of your body, mainly the middle. Yes, if you keep the lights far away enough you will get light on an area much larger than the size of the lamps, but the dose will differ greatly between different areas. You might get a good dose in a circular area exactly below the line of each of the lamps but inbetween those areas the dose would be minimally effective. That said, it’s a cost effective way to get some benefits.
Another problem is that if you go by the manufacturer reported wattage to calculate how much light you’re getting, you will often underestimate it because manufacturers almost always exaggerate the dose you’ll get at a given distance.
2 Likes
The body does, however, distribute mitochondria between cells. Hence you don’t necessarily have to radiate all of the body (and I don’t) although it is probably optimal to irradiate all of the body. That, however, conflicts with doing other things.
3 Likes
Distribution of mitochondria between cells only happens to a small extent. Not to mention that such distribution occurs mainly from cell-to cell so the distance would be super short, not enough to carry any potential benefits to areas that weren’t irradiated. Also even if some mitochondria were to hypothetically be irradiated with red/NIR light and then later to mvoe to other cells far away I don’t think they would carry the benefits of the prior irradiation with them unless they somehow traveled very quickly for long distances right after being irradiated. I think that’s very unlikely.
Fof the most part you do have to directly radiate the tissue that you want to benefit from the light. One exception is that if you irradiate the blood then whatever cells are in the blood can of course travel with the blood circulation and have effects elsewhere. But I haven’t seen much evidence of whole body or systemic red/NIR therapy having benefits. Most of the evidence is on local application of light to specific tissues with the benefits being confined to the irradiated area.
It would be very interesting to see some experiment where a patient’s blood is taken and ran through some kind of machine that irradiates the blood with red/NIR light and then immediately returned back into his body. That would give strong evidence of whether systemic benefits are significant or not.
2 Likes
What is the research that underpins this? I know, for example, that there are two mechanisms for sharing mitochonrdia. One is EVs and the other is macrophages. I also know that there is evidence that exercise benefits the whole body and anecdotal reports of red light having broader effects (not just in the irradiated area).
Neither have I, though there is some, albeit not an extensive RCT study, that there is some benefits for the skin, especially the face.
In any case, I am glad I built my whole body system.
Laying under it is like sunbathing and subjectively has a calming meditative effect.
I do a rather long exposure, front and back 30 minutes each. I have no idea how optimal this dose is. It is just what I like to do.
One lamp is fairly close to my face when I am lying on my back, so I get a good dose to my face. Red light therapy has subtle effects and may only be noticeable from extended use.
1 Like
Infrared has no effect on mature red blood cells, as they do not have mitochondria. They also lack a nucleus. This unique structure allows them to maximize space for hemoglobin, which is responsible for oxygen transport. Without mitochondria, red blood cells generate energy through anaerobic glycolysis. -OP
2 Likes
Even though evolutionary explanations are a fools errand, I can imagine that our ancestors evolved in an environment rich in NIR light. Maybe we no longer need so much if we aren’t exposed to as much UV or due to other benefits of modern life. But I’m betting than more NIR is better. Even if I won’t live outside 100% of the time, my NIR lamp sure does make my body feel better when I get a consistent although small dose.
1 Like
Ulf
#34
Thanks Olafurpal!
Determining my red light/PBM treatment, I realize the importance of energy density – i.e. the dose in J/cm2 = (power density mW/cm2 x treatment in seconds)/1000. Too little gives no response, too much may not give more benefit and may possibly be detrimental. And different energy densities may be optimal for different targets.
For improved cognition in healthy humans, of the four placebo-controlled trials I found, one used 20 J/cm2 and three used 60. Trials on human neurons have energy densities in the range of 10-84 J/cm2 for positive impact.
Guessing, perhaps around 40 J/cm2 would be good to aim at. This would correspond to e.g 60 mW/cm2 for about 11 minutes. The dose/energy density needed for the brain is rather high because the skull is a significant barrier to light penetration.
Considering targeting my entire head or more, I checked for energy dosage for reducing wrinkles/improving skin health which seems to need less dosing perhaps because skin is superficially located. Although this is not a priority for me, I don´t want to worsen face skin by giving too high a dose. Recent trials show positive impact from 4 – 10 J/cm2 and I found some reasoning that there could be detrimental effects from more than 15 J/cm2. But I couldn´t find any proof of such effects and found four older trials showing positive impact from 63-126 J/cm2.
So perhaps high doses are not detrimental only not giving more benefit than the lower doses which are now used. If so I could use the 40 dose for my entire head. Or play it safe by only using it for my head above the my eyes……
Continuing on the face: Illuminating retina with 7.2 J/cm2 restored color vision to a younger age. The same lead researcher did a new trial with just 1.44 J/cm2 (8 mW/cm2 for three minutes) with about the same positive results. Again, indicating more (up to a point) is perhaps not detrimental just ineffective. The tendency seems to be to reduce the doses to get similar benefits, perhaps with lower risks of side effects.
1 Like
When I said distribution of mitochondria occurs mainly from cell-to-cell I was referring to the two major mechanisms that are used to transfer mitochondria. These are, extracellular vesicles and tunneling nanotubes. But you’re right, macrophages can also transfer them by engulfing them. But I think that mainly occurs when macrophages digest damaged cells.
Absolutely, but I don’t think this is explained to any significant extent by transfer of mitochondria from cells in one parts of the body to cells elsewhere. There are plenty of known factors, not related to mitochondrial transfer, that explain why exercise benefits other parts of the body than the muscles being exercised. As for red light, the evidence for illumination of one part of the body having systemic benefits is much more limited, but could be explained by other factors than mitochondrial transfer. As an example, if you illuminate your right arm and reduce inflammation in that area, that could lead to lower amount of inflammatory cytokines being released into the blood from that area, which would then cause systemic effects.
I agree, this makes some sence. Some theories suggest that red/NIR light in the early morning and late evening helps protect against the harmful effects of strong UV light on the skin during mid day. If that is true then less red/NIR light would be needed to protect the skin in most people today because they don’t spend so much time out in the sun.
Yes, you definitely need a lot higher doses for the brain than for the skin, exactly because not much light passes through the skull so you need that much to deliver an effective dose to the brain.
High doses definitely can be detrimental but the dosing range that is effective is quite wide. Usually if you go a little too high on the dose you just get less benefits or no benefits, but not harm. 40 J/cm2 is probably a little too much for the whole head (it could give you too much on the skin), but could be good for the top of the head to get effective doses to the brain.
Yes, usually you have to go pretty far above the effective doses to start getting harm. Usually you just get no benefits if you go too far. Be careful with your eyes though, they tolerate less than the skin. Keep them closed when using light on the face.
3 Likes
I think.tunnelling nanotubes are used by macrophages at times.
1 Like
AnUser
#37
Worth replacing 3 W LED light bulb for 40 W incandescent light bulb for health?
1 Like
Li-Huei Tsai, Ph.D.
DIRECTOR, THE PICOWER INSTITUTE FOR LEARNING AND MEMORY AT MIT
PICOWER PROFESSOR OF NEUROSCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF BRAIN AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES, SENIOR ASSOCIATE MEMBER, BROAD INSTITUTE
https://tsailaboratory.mit.edu/li-huei-tsai/
Yesterday, August 16, 2024, Professor Li-Huei Tsai (MIT) was interviewed by Ira Flatow on NPR Science Friday, regarding 40 Hz light and sound therapy.
and also described in a very interesting RadioLab podcast, “Bringing Gamma Back” (December 8, 2016). You can find the audio podcast and transcript online at
note: John Furber (GRG member) wrote this Google Doc about the batch of 40 Hz lanterns that he had made (and sells):
and
From a different creator, I found this web link that will stream a 40 Hz audio wave continuously. However, it is streaming over the internet; you can’t listen offline.
It is free. If you like it, please consider sending them a donation.
https://szynalski.com/tone#40,saw,v0.75
2 Likes
“Light and sound may slow Alzheimer’s by making the brain remove toxins”
NewScientist 28 February 2024
Read the Full article here: Light and sound may slow Alzheimer’s by making the brain remove toxins
Paywalled article:
4 Likes
garym37
#40
Does anybody have any experience with either the PRANA Red LED light therapy face mask from Maysama, or the CurrentBody LED Face Mask Series 2?
