LLLT Helmets/Hair

[LukeL]

Same...

I stopped using it recently though just to see if anything different happens...

Why don't you continue to use progesterone?

I just don’t like using things daily if I don’t have to. I’ll experiment with it again I’m sure but I’ll only use it if I feel I absolutely need it.

 

[TripleOG]

Red light therapy came a long way since mid 2000s. A diffuse 5mW laser diode sounds grossly underpowered compared to the current LED offerings.

 

[LukeL]

Red light therapy came a long way since mid 2000s. A diffuse 5mW laser diode sounds grossly underpowered compared to the current LED offerings.

The laser diodes are really powerful. There are 300 of them...I’ve also tried red light man’s LED’s to no avail

 

[TripleOG]

The laser diodes are really powerful. There are 300 of them...I’ve also tried red light man’s LED’s to no avail

Going off..

Laser Light verses LEDs

There has been a lot of interest and money in low level laser therapy (LLLT) for healing, but there is no reason to believe that the coherent light from a laser is any better than LEDs, sunlight, or halogen lights. ( Unfortunately, authors of the last 10 years or so have twisted the historical meaning of LLLT to mean "low level LIGHT therapy" since lasers are fading away in importance in this area. ) Laser light might be more efficient since it may get through the skin more easily, but it does not penetrate more deeply once the light is beneath the skin, and cells do not know the difference: all photons are the same and the benefits are based on the action of each individual photon, not on bulk properties such as all the photons having the same polarity or coherency. The word "laser" has a superior marketing appeal for companies because it sounds interesting and mysterious. It also costs a lot which means patients can't do it on their own. These are the reasons there has been much more research in LLLT for healing than LEDs and halogens: companies and researchers have expected more profit. Light therapy is ancient and took on various new forms in the 1900's before lasers were invented. At least since 1989 definitive statements were being made in journal articles that lasers are not needed. To quote the most recognized researcher in LLLT, Professor Tiina Karu: "An analysis of published clinical results from the point of view of various types of radiation sources does not lead to the conclusion that lasers have a higher therapeutic potential than LEDs. ...The coherent properties of light are not manifested when the beam interacts with a biotissue on the molecular level....The conclusion was that under physiological conditions the absorption of low-intensity light by biological systems is of purely noncoherent (i.e., photobiological) nature....specially designed experiments at the cellular level have provided evidence that coherent and noncoherent light with the same wavelength, intensity, and irradiation time provide the same biological effect. Successful use of LEDs in many areas of clinical practice also confirms this conclusion." (Biomedical Photonics Handbook, 2003). Thankfully, Dr. Karu is a Russian Professor so we can expect her research to be more honest and scientific compared to U.S. medical research based on corporate profit. From a journal article: "...according to all available data, does not depend on the coherence of radiation." Reference: "Photobiological Principles of Therapeutic Applications of Laser Radiation" published by Yu. A. Vladimirov, et al in Biochemistry (Moscow) Volume 69, Number 1 / January, 2004.

LED Light Therapy

Not doubting your claims. There's many variables why a RLM or similar device didn't work to your liking. I'm just not sure it had much to do with LED vs. Laser.

 

[ddjd]

I have used progesterone...topically and orally. Nothing to report on for hair but it definitely makes me calm and look younger. It’s crazy how much better my face looks after just 2 days of using it

Is it dangerous in the eyes?

 

[ddjd]

you may also need extra copper or vitamin a in the diet to make it wor

Why's that

 

[johnwester130]

Why's that

cytochrome c is copper dependent

red light may deplete vitgamin a

 

[LukeL]

Is it dangerous in the eyes?

Topically on my scalp...I have no idea

 

[ddjd]

My observed effects - both increase blood flow. Both encourage more relaxed breathing. Both improve the quality of my hair to the same extent.

The supposed science in my head: Both are infra red light allowing cytochrome c oxidase to increase cellular respiration and pushing calcium out of the cell. Also an increase in CO2 increases bloodflow (though apparently cytochrome c oxidase is inhibited by nitric oxide and the red light activates the cytochrome c oxidase which results in a release of nitric oxide (throwing off the inhibitor as it were). So I'm not yet sure if anyone has worked out which is contributing to the increased bloodflow - a short term release of nitric oxide of increased output of CO2 from cellulr respiration. I would put my money on CO2 given the positive side effects of more hair. If you want to save your hair you've got to reduce nitric oxide.

Perhaps you would enlighten me as to what the totally different effects of lasers and lamp are?

Celia you and @johnwester130 hit the nail on the head.

High nitric oxide and low co2 is the cause of hair loss.

People don't understand methylene blue works in the exact same way as red light. It's dissociating nitric oxide from cytochrome c oxidase. Haidut did a whole thread about how nitric oxide is the key cause of aging.

So I think when @aarfai asked if methylene blue is a bad idea alongside red light. It's a great idea!! Everyone with hair loss issues should be doing both and if you're not exploring Methylene blue you're mad