Red Light Therapy, Lights, Supplemental Lighting

[narouz]

from Wikipedia, Incandescent light bulb

"An electric current heats the filament to typically 2,000 to 3,300 K (3,140 to 5,480 °F)), well below tungsten's melting point of 3,695 K (6,191 °F). Filament temperatures depend on the filament type, shape, size, and amount of current drawn. The heated filament emits light that approximates a continuous spectrum. The useful part of the emitted energy is visible light, but most energy is given off as heat in the near-infrared wavelengths."

So "incandescent" bulbs emit light--including red light--but also invisible "near-infrared" wavelengths, which produce heat.

"Near-infrared." That's not the same as "infrared."

But in the same Wiki article they have a thermal image of an incandescent bulb
with this note below:

"Thermal image of an incandescent bulb. Much of the energy is emitted as infrared. The IR heats the glass, which conducts the heat to the surrounding air, producing convection."

This says incandescent bulbs emit "infrared" wavelengths.
Not just "near-infrared" wavelengths are noted in the same Wiki entry.
Damn confusing.

 

[narouz]

from Wikipedia:

Infrared

"Infrared (IR) radiation is a type of electromagnetic radiation (a wave with electricity) . The wave is longer than light which humans can see and shorter than microwaves. The word infrared means below red. It comes from the Latin word infra (meaning below) and the English word red. (Infrared light has a frequency below the frequency of red light.) Red light has the longest wavelength that human eyes can see. Infrared waves cannot be seen by the eye. The infrared wave is between 750 nm and 1 mm. People sense infrared as heat. Most remote controls use infrared to send the control signals."

 

[narouz]

Just to demonstrate how screwy the information/documentation is
in this Red Light area of PeatDom,
here is a quote straight from the Danny Roddy site.
Ray Peat's Brain: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding
http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2011...ding-a-foundation-for-better-understandi.html
I've not changed anything except to highlight:

IRON

Have you had your thyroid checked? Abnormal ferritin can result from thyroid malfunction. Here's an economical and safe bulb; it has as much infrared as a red bulb, and can be used as the main light source.

Red light is o.k. How high was the TSH? High uric acid, ferritin, and TSH are commonly corrected by a thyroid supplement sufficient to lower the TSH.

Ooookaayyy.
Red light info mixed in with Iron info.
"Here's an economical and safe bulb." Where?
"It has as much infrared as a red bulb..." Is that a good thing? Are we trying to get Infrared?
"...and it can be used as a main light source." So...it doesn't give off heat?

 

[charlie]

Narouz, this page I am linking to seems like this person really knows their stuff about light therapy. I just found this link, trying to soak it all in.

http://heelspurs.com/led.html

 

[narouz]

LED Light Therapy - DIY project - heal with light - (LLLT) - easy to make
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy-FzbSk0UY

Not recommending--just interesting to wonder about.

 

[narouz]

Narouz, this page I am linking to seems like this person really knows their stuff about light therapy. I just found this link, trying to soak it all in.

http://heelspurs.com/led.html

Yes, Charlie--that is an interesting site.
They have a chart attached to the paragraph I quoted below which won't paste here,
but the chart shows the spectrum of light and invisible, infrared waves.
The red spectrum would seem to correspond to 800nm-ish range the writer identifies as the most healing.

Something that struck me in the paragraph below:
notice what I've bolded.
There, "incandescents" is separated from "heat lamps,"
and the incandescents have up to twice as much "red light" spectrum than the heat lamps.

Comparing halogen, incandescent, heat lamps, and the sun:The Sun, Halogen lamps, incandescent lamps, and infrared heat lamps all emit light based on the black body radiation principle (see this excel spreadsheet if you want to calculate energy in a specified range of a black body spectrum). Halogen lamps have a curve half way between the ones shown for incandescent and the Sun (see this chart). The Sun and halogen lights have about 28% of their energy in the 600 to 900 nm range. Incandescents have 15% to 21% and heat lamps have about 10%. To produce light, halogen, incandescent, and infrared heat lamps heat up a spiral filament of tungsten metal. The filament "incandesces" which means it produces light by black body radiation. A halogen gas can allow the filament to get hotter than regular incandescent bulbs. Heat lamps are the same as incadescent lamps but their long filament is operating at a cooler temperature so that it produces more far-infrared. They operate at approximately the following temperatures: Sun - 5780 K, halogen - 4100 K, incandescent - 2800 to 3200 K, heat lamp - 2400 K. Energy in the far-infrared is easily absorbed by water in the skin, concentrating the light energy in the skin that causes pain from heat sensors.

That is one thing that troubles me.
It seems like the bulbs being recommended for "Peat use" are "heat lamps."
Maybe Peat uses very bright, "old-fashioned," incandescent bulbs--not heat lamps
(although everyone knows that the old-fashioned incandescents do put out quite a bit of heat--
but not nearly as much as what I've always called a "heat lamp" bulb
(which is what seems to be recommended as the Peat bulb)...

 

[charlie]

Well, it definitely doesn't seem that infrared heat lamps are totally optimal. If anything, it seems like a big waste of energy compared to the others.

After looking at that page and also watching the youtube video.....I think I am going to build my own LED array. I am gonna make one so bright they can see it on the moon!

 

[narouz]

Well, it definitely doesn't seem that infrared heat lamps are totally optimal. If anything, it seems like a big waste of energy compared to the others.

After looking at that page and also watching the youtube video.....I think I am going to build my own LED array. I am gonna make one so bright they can see it on the moon!

Well, I've gotta research it more carefully,
but I know what you mean!

First, the Halogen option seems economical and pretty damn potent and not very hot.
I used to have one of those halogen work lamps (never used it).
But it came with an adjustable stand.
And it did have a glass pane in front of the sealed compartment the bulb was housed in
(that glass is important--blocks something?)
You have to put a fishbowl of water in front of it or a baggie filled with water.
Don't exactly understand it, but seems feasible.
Sounds like it is pretty intense exposure,
and not one that would need to be used for prolonged periods to deliver a wallop.

And then there is the LED option.
Cost prohibitive for me to buy from heel.spurs
but the YouTube video made it seem like
one could buy and assemble a significant array for under $100.
It wouldn't be as powerful as the halogen,
but it would be even cooler
and, according to heel.spurs, it would produce a more idea spectrum of light.

Sounds promising!

 

[nwo2012]

Peat uses incandescent lights, not red lights specifically. When I suggested a similar red bulb to the one mentioned he didnt recommend it. I will dig up the email later from him. He also sees the orange light of halogens as possibly being beneficial.
Oh and hey to everyone. Just signed up here recently but have been living the 'Peat' way for past 3-4 months. Very stricly I might add.

 

[charlie]

Nwo2012, welcome to the forum! It's great to see you posting.


When you say a similar red bulb like the one mentioned, which one do you mean? The heat/infrared lamps?

I am pretty sold on the LED's being the best type of light to use. Just gotta pull some funds together to get that project going.

 

[nwo2012]

Here it is.

Me

I did see you recommend red light. Would this be useful for use every evening?
what do you think of the specs of this unit, was thinking to hang in the lounge for every evening use?


HIGH OUTPUT.. EXCELLENT RESULTS!!!
This latest 250W High Pressure Sodium(HPS) Grow Light Systembenefits: accelerate development and hearty flowering! HPS light is for better flowering, which is best for your plants chlorophyll production. It is especially productive for flower seedling development. Safe and environmental friendly.
Specifications:
250W HPS Bulb:
Power: 250 watts (High efficiency)
Expected Life Span: 29,000 hours
Lumen: 29,500 lumens
Contains more red spectrum, which is best for flowering
Strong power to penetrate fog
High output, high luminescence efficiency.
Fit for all standard 250 watts MH grow light systems
Fit for the Heliophile, such as Rose and Camellia, which grows better at longer sunshine time

RP

I don't think it has been tested enough in animals to be sure of its safety.

Me

I thought there was a red light you had recommended to reduce radiation? So best just to buy a standard incandescent in your opinion?

RP

It's the red light in it that is most beneficial. The bulbs with red glass just don't emit other colors, but even the red light isn't quite as strong.

The continuous warm spectrum of incandescent bulbs is better than the discontinuous spectrum of fluorescent light; the toxic blue part is very low in the incandescents, and all wavelengths of orange and red are present.

 

[narouz]

from Using Sunlight to Sustain Life
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/ayur ... fects.html

by Raymond Peat, Ph.D., Ray Peat’s Newsletter — from:
Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, June 1996, Page 83 – 85

Q: How much sunlight do we need a day for general health?

[RP]: If artificial light is bright enough, it is as effective as
sunlight at stopping the stress reaction, but people seldom use
lights that are bright enough. Generally, people and animals are
healthier when days are longer than 12 hours, that is, after March
21 and before September 20. When days are shorter than 12 hours,
artificial lights should be used from sunset until bedtime, but the
greatest brightness probably doesn’t have to be continuous.
Studies on isolated organs and tissues suggest that a few seconds
of penetrating bright light are enough to break the free radical
chain reactions, slowing the production of toxic substances, which
tend to increase in concentration during nocturnal stress. A few
seconds’ exposure to the direct light of ten 150 Watt incandescent
bulbs, for just a few minutes every two or three hours, might
provide more effective protection than continuous exposure to a
single 100 Watt light.

This is from an old newsletter of Peat's, back in 1996.

At least at that point it is clear that Peat is talking about regular incandescent bulbs.
Not heat lamps.
(Well...can't rule it out, because I guess heat lamps are incandescent...but doesn't seem likely.)

10 x 150watt incandescent bulbs.
That would be very bright indeed.
And, it would put out some considerable heat
(though not nearly as much as heat lamps).

Note also that Peat said it might be effective in bursts of a few minutes at a time.

 

[narouz]

Another aspect of this Peat red light therapy thing:

I've been thinking about the destructive effects of modern, pervasive light sources.
Consider the time in front of computer screens.
Or TV sets.
And under fluorescent lights.

I believe Peat has said the fluorescent lights give off a lot of the destructive blue wavelengths, right?
What wavelengths are TVs and computer monitors?

My general point is that
we are not just trying to fill the vacuum or absence of light with red light.
We are trying to offset the presence of continuous destructive light.

 

[nwo2012]

Another aspect of this Peat red light therapy thing:

I've been thinking about the destructive effects of modern, pervasive light sources.
Consider the time in front of computer screens.
Or TV sets.
And under fluorescent lights.

I believe Peat has said the fluorescent lights give off a lot of the destructive blue wavelengths, right?
What wavelengths are TVs and computer monitors?

My general point is that
we are not just trying to fill the vacuum or absence of light with red light.
We are trying to offset the presence of continuous destructive light.

Yes he did say that about fluorescents. He also did mention use of orange/yellow lensed glasses. I have a pair of such blue-light blockers. I tend to wear them for 1 hour or so before going to bed. They help the eyes relax for sure.

 

[narouz]

"A few seconds’ exposure to the direct light of ten 150 Watt incandescent
bulbs, for just a few minutes every two or three hours, might
provide more effective protection than continuous exposure to a
single 100 Watt light."

--Dr. Ray Peat

You know, this might really be the best Peat Approved Red Light Set-up.
And it wouldn't be terribly expensive or terribly hot or even terribly unpleasant.
You could rig up a stand of say 5 150 watter on a stand of some sort,
make two of those,
so you'd have ten bulbs overall.
You could put them on both sides of you at say a desk where you spend a lot of time,
and put them on a timer to come on for a few minutes every hour.

My only reservation is that I think this is pretty old stuff about lights from Peat...
I'm thinking this is circa 1996.
So I wonder if he's updated his ideas about red light.

Peat might say that would be very effective.
nwo2012, where are you?
Get on the Peat Phone! :P

 

[nwo2012]

"A few seconds’ exposure to the direct light of ten 150 Watt incandescent
bulbs, for just a few minutes every two or three hours, might
provide more effective protection than continuous exposure to a
single 100 Watt light."

--Dr. Ray Peat

You know, this might really be the best Peat Approved Red Light Set-up.
And it wouldn't be terribly expensive or terribly hot or even terribly unpleasant.
You could rig up a stand of say 5 150 watter on a stand of some sort,
make two of those,
so you'd have ten bulbs overall.
You could put them on both sides of you at say a desk where you spend a lot of time,
and put them on a timer to come on for a few minutes every hour.

My only reservation is that I think this is pretty old stuff about lights from Peat...
I'm thinking this is circa 1996.
So I wonder if he's updated his ideas about red light.

Peat might say that would be very effective.
nwo2012, where are you?
Get on the Peat Phone! :P

It sounds good to me. Message on its way via Peatphone.

 

[peatarian]

Ray Peat recommended the light therapy to me a couple of years ago. There were about two dozen e-mails between us until I had it right:

He did mean infrared but NOT with the red filter. Meaning: the pure glass infrared lamps. They are sometimes (but not always) called heat lamps. He said there was no limit to the time I could spend lying (or sitting) under the lamps as long as I didn't neglect the safety distance.

The more Watt or Volt you get, the better. So I bought 7 times 275 Watt of incandescent infrared lamps. I spent hours reading and working (and sweating) under the lamps in winter but in summer I prefer to go outside and have the real sun.

I tried sleeping with the lights (or at least one) pointed at my feet. The problem is you cannot use a blanket if you do and during the night it feels weird. Apart from that my boyfriend didn't like it. I use the lights until I go to bed unless I am sick then I will sleep with a lamp at my feet.

Everybody I know get's a headache if they look into the infrared light for more than a few minutes. I think this looking into the light thing refers to normal light bulbs or means you should look up every now and then.

Blue lights as in TV and PC are bad so I use orange sunglasses. You can feel how they help your eyes.

 

[charlie]

Ok, so clear heat lamps are the ticket it looks like. Plus, they will keep you warm in the winter. And, you can use them as much as you want. Perfect.

Next, I need to look into the orange sunglasses. But we will leave that for another thread.

 

[charlie]

So, I was over at Peatarian.com today and saw that Katia posted this information below. She says the heat lamps peak in the 1100 wavelength range. And that incandescents peak lower.

I researched this a bit more and it seems these IR bulbs (Osram, Philips) are not the best choice. Their max. wavelenght is at 1,100 nm (see for example here: http://www.infraphil.info/Philips_Infraphil-PAR38E.pdf). When I asked Peat about them, he wrote back:

I think the slightly shorter wavelengths are the most beneficial, from about 600 nm to about 850 nm.

"The effective wavelengths for photobiomodulation are in the visible near red to near infrared (NIR) range, between ~590-850 nm. Light in this region of the spectrum can penetrate tissues and, at the same time, lacks the carcinogenic and mutagenic properties of ultraviolet light. Several recent studies have revealed that photobiomodulation by low intensity light in this range facilitates wound and retinal healing (Conlan et al., 1996; Eells et al., 2004), improves recovery rates from ischemia by protecting cardiomyocytes from hypoxia and reoxygenation injury (Zhang et al., 2009), promotes muscle regeneration (Weiss and Oron, 1992), prevents the neurotoxic effects of cyanide and azide on neuronal cells (Wong-Riley et al., 2001; Wong-Riley et al., 2005; Liang et al., 2006), and restores axonal transport in Parkinson’s disease cybrid neurites (Trimmer et al., 2009). In addition, it has been reported that NIR light promotes cell proliferation in fibroblasts (Taniguchi et al., 2009) and endothelial cells (Chen et al., 2008), attenuates oxidative stress (Lim et al., 2008), and has neuroprotective effects in vivo against optic neuropathies brought about by mitochondrial dysfunction in a rodent model (Rojas et al., 2008). There appears to be an optimal dose (total light energy or fluence) for photobiomodulation and doses larger than the optimal value will either have a diminished or negative effect (Hamblin and Demidova, 2006; Ball et al., 2011)."

As far as I understand, an ordinary incandescent bulb would be best then as the spectrum is peaking in that range. I found a website that seems to sell them, even 500 W ones (not sure what the "extreme - burn EU" warning means though :)): http://www.heatbulbs.eu/

So, now thanks to narouz, thank you narouz, I am started to question EVERYTHING and not just accept what someone says. So I started digging.

Here is the spectrum for incandescent bulbs, and from what katia is saying, indeed, incandescent bulbs do have a MUCH better light frequency then heat lamps:



Here is the spectrum of the Philips heat lamp lights:



And here, is the halogen light wavelength spectrum, which is even better then the heat lamps, but still not as good as the regular incadescent:



So, to me, it's settled. Incandescent is the way to go for optimal wavelength benefits. Unless, you build a specific wavelength LED array which I plan to in the future.

Then, halogen would be in second place, with heat lamps in third.

 

[narouz]

Charlie, this PeatLight stuff is really a bear.

Recently, peatarian, over in some other thread,
discussed how she had many many email back-and-forths
with Peat
about exactly what kind of lights he recommends.

What she came out with
(hope I've got this right...from memory)
was...back to the Heat Lamp bulbs, non-red glass.
Now that I think of it, I believe you, like myself, took note of that.

But it you do some research on light,
and on what bulbs give off the most beneficial wavelengths
it wouldn't appear to be the "heat lamps" or "infrared lamps" as they are also called.

Peat seems consistent in articulating the goal in wavelengths as
the "red light" spectrum.
And he has said (to nwo2012, I think) that
the most desirable red light spectrum is that which is "continuous."
I'm a little lost on that term,
but I think Peat refers to how some bulbs have two or three peaks in terms of
focused output of wavelength strength,
for instance, you might have a bulb with very intense rays in say the
600-680 range, then again in the 750 to 800 range,
but with not much in-between.

So that "continuous" quality I need to know more about.

But what other research seems to show is that
heat lamps/infrared lamps are not the best in the red light range.
Regular, bright (non-heat/infrared) incandescents are like twice as strong as heat lamps in those wavelengths.

I'm responding now just off the top of my head from memory
without consulting those tables/charts I refer to,
so...I apologize for possible inaccuracies in my remarks.

I would like to add--
and I hesitate to do so
because most of us have sort of elevated Peat to Deity status --
but this is one area where Dr. Peat just isn't very clear.
For a guy who seems to think that light is very important,
he hasn't really given much guidance.
Maybe I've missed stuff he's written on the subject,
but...it's kind of strange--the gaps and ambiguity he does not seem all that inclined to fill and clarify.

After all, how hard is it to specify exactly what lights should be used?
Maybe he simply does not know,
and it is something he is still in the process of experimenting with.

Another curious thing is that he doesn't seem to point toward
light research articles or sources he likes--does he?

But to return to the more concrete point:
I am still not persuaded that the Heat Lamps are the best way to go.
Seems to me that the regular incandescents are better and stronger in the red wavelengths,
which are largely within that rough range of 600-900 (I forget the unit of measure).
Other (non-Peatian) light research often refers to that range as being the most therapeutic.
One odd outlier in that regard would seem to be SAD light therapy.
Those guys seem to think brightness is the key,
and prefer fluorescents--which as you know Peat disdains (lots of blue spectrum)...