Careful Where You Put That. Red Light On Testes Could Be A Problem

[x-ray peat]

ok so I am reading through various redlight/lllt therapies and came across a rather disturbing one.

http://www.alliedacademies.org/arti...elevatingserum-testosterone-level-in-rats.pdf

Basically they shined a 67o nm laser and a 808 nm laser on rat testes to see the effect on testosterone. The 670 nm laser significantly increased testosterone levels while the 808 nm only did so moderately.

However this was the shocker and may give you some concern about where you are pointing these red lights and what wavelength you are using.

"On histopathological examination, there were no definite changes in the 670 nm wavelength group. In the 808 nm wavelength group, there were such findings as an atrophy of the seminiferous tubules, disarrangement of sertoli cells, generation of giant multinucleated bodies and other deformities."

 

[encerent]

The higher wavelengths penetrate deeper but their safety hasn't been proven. I've ran across other articles that show damage to the skin with higher energy energies and wavelengths. Look at dermatology articles and you'll see some show skin aging and damage with infrared lights.

So use the red light that's conclusively safe, the kind Ray Peat recommends: a old broad spectrum incandescent bulb. He says (as you can see in the quotes in the video) he recommends these for general lights as well as concentrated therapy.



There are a lot of questions about red/infrared lights and a lot of studies with info that isn't all that consistent. So for this one I would go with the exactly with what peat recommends, which is a very conservative and cheap option.

Personally I use 630nm and 660nm LED grow lights (set at a safe distance)in the summer because I don't want all that extra heat.

 

[x-ray peat]

The higher wavelengths penetrate deeper but their safety hasn't been proven. I've ran across other articles that show damage to the skin with higher energy energies and wavelengths. Look at dermatology articles and you'll see some show skin aging and damage with infrared lights.

So use the red light that's conclusively safe, the kind Ray Peat recommends: a old broad spectrum incandescent bulb. He says (as you can see in the quotes in the video) he recommends these for general lights as well as concentrated therapy.



There are a lot of questions about red/infrared lights and a lot of studies with info that isn't all that consistent. So for this one I would go with the exactly with what peat recommends, which is a very conservative and cheap option.

Personally I use 630nm and 660nm LED grow lights (set at a safe distance)in the summer because I don't want all that extra heat.

I completely agree and am planning on returning the 850 nm CCTV light I just bought. I think I am going to look into those LEDs. I currently have a 300 watt/130v incandescent above my head but if you look at the wavelengths incandescents and heat lamps put out you are still getting a lot of near, mid and far IR.

Do you have any recommended grow light links?

 

[encerent]

I completely agree and am planning on returning the 850 nm CCTV light I just bought. I think I am going to look into those LEDs. I currently have a 300 watt/130v incandescent above my head but if you look at the wavelengths incandescents and heat lamps put out you are still getting a lot of near, mid and far IR.

Do you have any recommended grow light links?

The rats were damaged by a 808nm light @ 200 mW. You're getting way, way less light intensity from an incandescant. They use most of their energy on generating heat.

For grow lights, I'd look for something like this. This 12W light is probably giving you about 100 mW/cm2 of 660nm light if it's touching your skin. (And you shouldn't use it that close of course.)

Amazon.com : ABI 12W Deep Red 660nm LED Bloom Booster Grow Light Bulb for Flowering and Spectrum Enhancement : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Light in 600nm to 1000nm is good for you. But higher wavelengths with higher intensities (greater than 10 mW/cm2 maybe) will probably hurt you.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Incandescent clear bulbs up to 300 watts each are in their own category. All other "red" lights are different things entirely.

 

[x-ray peat]

The rats were damaged by a 808nm light @ 200 mW. You're getting way, way less light intensity from an incandescant. They use most of their energy on generating heat.

For grow lights, I'd look for something like this. This 12W light is probably giving you about 100 mW/cm2 of 660nm light if it's touching your skin. (And you shouldn't use it that close of course.)

Amazon.com : ABI 12W Deep Red 660nm LED Bloom Booster Grow Light Bulb for Flowering and Spectrum Enhancement : Patio, Lawn & Garden

I think light in 600nm to 1000nm is good for you. But higher wavelengths with higher intensities (greater than 10 mW/cm2 maybe) will probably hurt you.

thanks for the led info.
As for the safety of my 300W incandescent, I am not so sure the amount of infrared is minimal. To clarify infrared is heat, not visible light. 808 nm is invisible. The fact that much of the energy is generating heat/infrared rather than visible light is part of the problem. Also we are talking 300 Watts of power not milliwatts. Plus people typically use them for several hours at a time. The rats only got 30 minutes of 200 mW/cm2. Calculating the power density of the incandescent at my skin would be needed for a real comparison but the fact that I feel very warm from it means that I am getting a pretty good dose of infrared. All the more reason to look into the led IMO.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I use a minute of red light on testicles. If that. Probably 30 seconds. Don't overdo this.

 

[Such_Saturation]

200mW lol

 

[Broken man]

Hello all, I bought this one. Could I use it on my testes? Amazon.com: Beurer Infrared Heat Lamp for Muscle Pain and Cold Relief, Light Therapy and Portable: Health & Personal Care I cant find wave length.

 

[Sucrates]

Hello all, I bought this one. Could I use it on my testes? Amazon.com: Beurer Infrared Heat Lamp for Muscle Pain and Cold Relief, Light Therapy and Portable: Health & Personal Care I cant find wave length.

It's not a narrowband (single wavelength) light, gives out red and near-infrared along with other wavelengths. I would not use this on the family jewels, you want to avoid heat. The study posted may or mat not be relevant, I think an animal would be inclined to move due to heat discomfort at 200mW 808nm for 30 mins. It may be simply cooking, but I'm not 100% sure. I'd use red light unless you need to use infrared specifically though. There are other studies on testosterene, testes and sperm in Vladimir Heskainen's database
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) / photobiomodulation (PBM) / red/NIR phototherapy studies - a comprehensive database by Vladimir Heiskanen

 

[x-ray peat]

I use a minute of red light on testicles. If that. Probably 30 seconds. Don't overdo this.

Have you noticed any changes? How many treatments per week? You are a brave little hamster.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Have you noticed any changes? How many treatments per week? You are a brave little hamster.

LOL

I don't notice a change. I am doing several things and it's hard to differentiate the effects.

 

[tca300]

I've done this for months. As long as I dont overheat my junk I notice quite large increases in libido. I use redlightmans device, in 2-10 min intervals several times per day. Once again, making sure I dont overheat my junk... otherwise its likely to lower Testosterone.

 

[Such_Saturation]

That's like 20 hours at 5mW though innit

 

[Diokine]

I've read this study before and I wish they had given a little more information. 200mW is quite a bit of power, but they don't talk about the power density. It does say they are using a single diode from what I can gather, so the power density is probably really high (~50mw / cm^2.) Still though, I think it's prudent not to shine high power laser devices on tissues like that (testicle, thyroid, kidney.) I have used my 808nm probe on the testicles, and like I said, not recommended. I use 630nm LED arrays on them all the time, and it's certainly effective.

 

[Such_Saturation]

It says 360J sq cm

 

[Diokine]

They are using that figure to represent a total dose, not an intensity. I saw they specified 30 minute treatment.

360 joules/cm^2 delivered in 10 seconds (600 mw / cm^2) is very powerful and should definitely be used cautiously on most tissue. Delivered over 30 minutes (200 mw/cm^2) it is much less intense, but still past the upper limit of what I think is considered safe by most of the literature. Most sources I've seen recommend closer to 25 mw/cm^2, 50mw/cm^2 being the safe upper limit. Light being delivered by a laser is potentially more destructive, but this study is using power densities way above what is considered safe.

 

[x-ray peat]

They are using that figure to represent a total dose, not an intensity. I saw they specified 30 minute treatment.

360 joules/cm^2 delivered in 10 seconds (600 mw / cm^2) is very powerful and should definitely be used cautiously on most tissue. Delivered over 30 minutes (200 mw/cm^2) it is much less intense, but still past the upper limit of what I think is considered safe by most of the literature. Most sources I've seen recommend closer to 25 mw/cm^2, 50mw/cm^2 being the safe upper limit. Light being delivered by a laser is potentially more destructive, but this study is using power densities way above what is considered safe.

What about LEDs? The redlightman mini has a power density of 200mW/cm2 at 0 cm. Do you think 30-60 seconds of this is safe.

 

[encerent]

thanks for the led info.
As for the safety of my 300W incandescent, I am not so sure the amount of infrared is minimal. To clarify infrared is heat, not visible light. 808 nm is invisible. The fact that much of the energy is generating heat/infrared rather than visible light is part of the problem. Also we are talking 300 Watts of power not milliwatts. Plus people typically use them for several hours at a time. The rats only got 30 minutes of 200 mW/cm2. Calculating the power density of the incandescent at my skin would be needed for a real comparison but the fact that I feel very warm from it means that I am getting a pretty good dose of infrared. All the more reason to look into the led IMO.

Yes, that's right. Incandescent lamps emit about 90% of the energy in infrared wavelengths (or heat). But as others have mentioned, it seems that light from incandescent lamps are qualitatively different from laser probes used in these studies or even LED lights. Incandescents were widely used (though are being phased out rapidly now) and generations of people were highly exposed to them for a lot of their lives. They are safe and Peat says you can use them as long as you want. Someone asked Peat about the safety of LED lights and he said they are probably OK too.

 

[Diokine]

What about LEDs? The redlightman mini has a power density of 200mW/cm2 at 0 cm. Do you think 30-60 seconds of this is safe.

The light from LEDs is different than the light from lasers, especially as it relates to interaction with biological tissue. Laser light is coherent, meaning it "synced" up. Focused lasers have high spatial coherence, the wavefront of the laser light is tightly packed. Even unfocused lasers have temporal coherence, which means the phase of the wave is in time even if it is separated spatially.

Coherent light will usually produce a much greater response in biological tissues. The electrical oscillations experienced by the molecules making up your tissue, under the influence of light, can be much higher in amplitude when the light has degrees of coherence. It is also able to penetrate much deeper. With enough power this can be a huge stimulation to the electrical nature of the cell, enough so to cause damage.

LEDs are not coherent - the electrical stimulation provided to the cells by their light is very spread out in time and space. As such it is hard to reach enough stimulation to cause damage. It is definitely possible to overdo it though - 200mw/cm^2 is pretty juicy but probably safe. Keep in mind you are altering subtle electrical properties of cells and the environment around them. Sometimes through changes in the potential that alter cellular "gates," sometimes through direct stimulation of specific enzyme pathways - there are many mechanisms.

Pay attention to the response you get from the light. If it's too intense you may be stressing the cells out and you can usually feel fatigue, even in the testicles. It may be that some small degree of stress is beneficial. If it works, run it.