Interesting Blog On Red /infrared Light

[Wagner83]

Here you go:

LED Light Therapy

He also talks about halogen lights and how similar to sunlight it is, and has ideas for cheap set ups (concerning red/infrared light too).

 

[Wagner83]

Excerpts:

Comparing LED Wavelengths
LEDs typically some in certain wavelengths because the material science has discovered specific combinations of elements that results in the best efficiencies. So even if you tried to find LEDs that exactly match what research says are the best wavelengths for tissue response, you may suffer such a large loss in efficiency of the LED to emit light that it does nto make a difference (circuits can get only so hot, given the presence or absence of fans and heat sinks).

660 nm verses 850 nm
(update: 660 nm and 760 nm strike a different part of CCO that MIGHT cause it to pump more H+ with fewer electrons in the transport chain and thereby produce a more alkaline mitochondria. 850 nm ad 630 nm are more likely to simply speed up movement of electrons through the chain. ) 2013 update: since 660 nm act on the bimetal core and since NO competes with O2 at that location, 660 nm may release more NO than 850 nm.

[...]
I don't know if one is better than the other, but I currently have a preference for 850 nm over all others. I am in the process of testing other wavelengths to see if I can find anything better than my best 850 device (shown below). 660 nm has a much weaker observed response on CCO, but experiments indicate it works. If 850 nm is better, it might be simply because 850 nm has 23% more photons per mW/cm^2 and CCO is activated on a per-photon basis. (Longer wavelengths have less energy per photon, so equal energy from 850 means more photons). I have not confirmed it, but it appears 850 LEDs are more efficient at emitting light energy than 660 nm and 630 nm, so from a practical viewpoint, circuits of a given style (such as no fan) using 850 nm are simply ABLE to emit more light energy, and LED device businessmen who turn into LED circuit designers, and even professional circuit designers, will not be able to see that the 850 nm spec sheets are saying they can get more light energy out of their circuits than 660 nm designs. The red and infrared spec sheets usually use different ratings (mcd verses mW/cm^2), and it's hard enough adjusting for the "viewing angle" of the LED as it affects the mW/cm^2 and determining if they are talking about 50% level or peak level, not to mention difficulties in conveting with mcd.

670 nm verses 830 nm
670 nm and 830 nm are probably better than 660 nm and 850 nm, but maybe not by a lot. I've seen one article that says 670 nm worked better on the retina than 830 nm eventhough more photons were available from the 830 nm. Since 830 nm is a lower frequency it has more photons per mW/cm^2, which means they could have given too high a dose because the CCO response is on a per photon basis, but I believe that is unlikely as they also suspected in the paper. Another thing to consider is that the 670 nm is a higher energy which can have more of an effect than 830 nm if there is a threshold of energy needed, which is probably the case. Another thing is that their operation on the CCO is different: one oxidizes it and the other reduces it. I have notice a 630 nm LED seemed to work a lot better than 850 on pain from a cut, but the energy from the 630 LED was more concentrated. I have enjoyed my LED helmet that combined 660 nm and 850 nm a lot more than my 850-only helmet, but it is impossible to know if it was just from the nice tingling of the scalp the red causes or if it was something on the cortex.

Halogen Lights
Halogen lights are the strongest and least expensive light therapy, having approximately 35% of their light in the 600 to 900 nm range, being the man-made light source that is closest to the Sun because the filament temperature can get closest to the Sun. "Halogen" refers the inert gas (like iodine or bromine) that surrounds a tungsten filament that keeps it from burning out at higher temperatures so it can have a whiter color. Tungsten filaments are also used in common incandescent lights and heat lamps at lower temperatures. Incandescent and heat lamps will work almost as well if water is used to block the heat. I often use a 75 W halogen spotlight size PAR30 ($7) or a 100 Watt halogen flood light size PAR38 ($7) from Lowes or Walmart and a zip-lock bag filled with water to block the far-infrared heat. Follow my suggestions at your own risk. A snow globe filled with water can act like a lens to focus it to make it more intense, but that is not needed with the spot light. These lights are the standard outdoor lights you use on the corner of houses, although some are incandescent instead of halogen. You lay the zip lock bag of water on the injured knee, shoulder, ankle, elbow, wrist, finger, etc. Then hold the light as close to the zip lock bag without touching it. Shine the light through the water at the injured joint or other tissue. For the knee, kind of to the side or bottom so it gets on the side of the knee cap instead of directly on it. Shine it for 10 minutes once a day for most injuries. Fingers and other injuries that are not too deep need only about 5 minutes if the light is so strong you need sunglass to look at the skin surface reflection. This is going to be better than $100 to $1000 worth of LED or laser light therapy.
at least since 1995 (Hydrosun). My 75 W light is powered by a lamp cord that has a switch in the base, but you can also use a small lamp with the shade removed. There are several dangers to this, so I do not recommend anyone try it without strong caution. For example, the snow globe can focus the light too strongly and quickly burn the skin. The super-bright white light from the reflection off the skin can damage the eyes, so I have to wear sun glasses. The base gets hot, and setting the light down can burn tables and carpet. Dark skin burns very easily with this because it blocks all the visible light energy in the surface of the skin, concentrating the energy in a small volume of tissue.
But here's what I use. Pretty much the same thing for $10 instead of $1000's(?). Add red food coloring to the water if you want to keep the spectrum better restricted to 600 to 900 nm. The most common red food coloring dye has a perfect absorption spectrum for this.

LED Strength and Dose
Most manufacturers and users of LED devices are underestimating how much time is needed to treat injuries beneath the skin. White skin blocks very roughly 90% to 95% of the incoming light, which most users are not taking into account. Most simple home devices need to be applied for an hour to treat injuries beneath the skin, but manufacturers and users very offten apply them for less than 15 minutes, so the technology works a lot better than most users realize. When injured cells are directly exposed to the light (such as in a test tube or the retina) esearch indicates 4 to 6 Joules of energy (J) applied to each 1 cm by 1 cm area (1 cm^2) once or twice per day is the best dosage. At 10 J/cm^2, all the benefits gained from the light can be negated, so not applying too much light is important.
[..]
The only benefit of stronger LED devices is a shorter treatment time. Ten to 20 times as much energy (Joules) is required to treat tissue that is beneath the skin, or 10 x 6 = 60 J/cm^2 because of the 90% to 95% light (or more) that is blocked by the skin and other tissue between the skin and the injury. For a 0.03 W/cm^2 LED device, 60/0.03 = 2000 seconds = 33 minutes at a minimum. This dosage can be applied twice a day and is not harmful to tissue. Dark skin may require three times more because it blocks very roughly three times as much light. Maybe 500 J/cm^2 is needed to reach injured cells 2.54 cm (1 inch) below the skin (4.6 hours at 30 mW/cm^2).

 

[TripleOG]

Yea, great page. Something "new" jumps out with every re-read.

Interesting comments on skin blocking 90-95% of the penetrating light. Falls in line with those successful autoimmune thyroiditis studies dosing 707J/cm2 with 830nm lasers. The treated tissue probably received 1/10th of that. Around 6J/cm2 is often recommended here. Seeing how drastically skin, melanin, and depth drastically affects penetration, I'm not sure 6J/cm2 is sufficient without taking the aforementioned into account. I'll definitely be closing/covering my eyes when treating my face from now on, seeing how the retina loads up MUCH faster.

Another very interesting comment in his "pulsing" section:

Research in animals has shown there is a limit to the intensity the cells need to receive, 4 mW/cm^2 in one and 15 mW/cm^2 in another. This means intensity at the skin surface for injuries beneath the skin might better if they are below 80 mW/cm^2 (assuming 5% penetration through skin: 4/0.05=80). If this effect is NOT due to heating, then really strong pulses may not be ideal. For example, my 50 microsecond on times and 250 microsecond off times with an average intensity of 30 mW/cm^2 are 180 mW/cm^2 during the 50 microseconds. On the other hand, there may be a threshold effect for the intensity such that you need at least 4 mW/cm^2. In this case the pulses would reach deeper in the sense that even doubling the time of application for a device half as strong would not show benefit as it would normally do.

Blasting irradiance north of 100mW/cm2 may not be worth it. Wish he was still active on his site to touch on current research.

I plan on testing out his halogen-water setup. Starting with one 500W flood light. I'm intrigued enough between the testimonial under "Light Therapy Bed" and this post on Peatarian years later raving about it: Halogen light through two inches of water is the way to do light therapy - Ray Peat Q&A . Want to see if there's a noticeable difference from the 12W 660nm grow light I own.

Using his math, a 500W halogen concentrating 80% of its light over a 30x30 cm area (square foot) will deliver 120-125mW/cm2 in the 600-900 range. About half of this is near the four specific beneficial wavelengths. Water blocks the far-IR. I'm curious if there's added benefits with the blue and green wavelengths. While they don't penetrate the skin, they may aid in acne/pimples and irregular pigmentation. The testimonial on heelspurs mentioned disappearing moles the person had since birth while the Peatarian poster said his psoriasis and keratosis pilaris disappeared. We'll see.

 

[Baltazar]

@TripleOG

For godsake

Stop making me weird

Which one is the best ? Hahaha

 

[TripleOG]

@TripleOG

For godsake

Stop making me weird

Which one is the best ? Hahaha

Which what is best? Wavelength? Light source? Other?

 

[Baltazar]

@TripleOG

Is the sun better source for all benefits ?

 

[ddjd]

Here you go:

LED Light Therapy

He also talks about halogen lights and how similar to sunlight it is, and has ideas for cheap set ups (concerning red/infrared light too).

awesome blog. does this photo mean copper is essential in order for red light to successfully improve cytochrome c oxidase function

 

[TripleOG]

@TripleOG

Is the sun better source for all benefits ?

I'm no expert. I'm just piecing together information from different sources like everyone else here.

The sun is a one-stop-shop for light benefits. The sun isn't our only light source throughout the day, though. Isolating the 600-900nm wavelengths helps offset the the excitation of shorter wavelengths found in electronics and indoor lighting, as well as the stress of inadequate light and darkness.

LEDs are likely best when focusing on the 600-900nm range. The wavelengths are powerful, specific, easier to calculate dosing, low-to-no heat allowing longer treatments at close distances (which may be necessary according to data on the heelspurs website).

Incandescent are good if you want heat along with red light benefits (think winter). Has low amounts of shorter wavelengths to avoid circadian rhythm dysregulation. Downside is you won't get the intensity of LEDs due to too much heat at close distances. This just means you'll need longer exposures times compared to an LED source.

Halogens can be looked at as supplemental sunlight without the UV. An option if you value shorter wavelengths. (e.g, seasonal affective disorder, possibly acne, etc.)

 

[Baltazar]

Thanks man
I really appreciate it

 

[Memento]

Excellent link, I wonder though if such high intensity halogen light as he describes using might be detrimental.

Infrared radiation-induced matrix metalloproteinase in human skin: implications for protection - PubMed

Human skin is exposed to infrared radiation (IR) from natural and artificial sources. In previous studies, near IR radiation (IRA; 760-1,440 nm) was shown to elicit a retrograde mitochondrial signaling response leading to induction of matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) expression. These studies...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov