Red Light Therapy, Lights, Supplemental Lighting

gabriel79

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
94
Hi Narouz,
For the "continuous" spectrum, I understand that Peat is referring to the typical daylight or incandescent bulb light, where the PSD (power spectral distribution) is "smooth" (even if they have a couple of maximums, most of the power is still in the whole bandwidth); contrasted to the "discrete" or spiky form of the fluorescent light PSD, where the power is basically in 3 or 4 spikes and very low power density in the rest of the spectrum bandwidth
From both Peat and the links provided by Katia I see that since the most beneficial band is the 850-590 nm, which means that incandescent normal and halogen bulbs would be best. I would expect "heat" lamps to not be that good or at least not much efficient, since they´re designed so that most of the energy is in the infrared part of the spectrum, which means at red they´re already giving low energy and not really giving much in the orange range (590-610nm band).
 
OP
charlie

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
Gabriel, agreed. Great post, thank you!
 
OP
charlie

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
Here is the "spiky" spectrum of fluorescent lighting that Gabriel was talking about. Check out those spikes, that some alien type stuff right there!
 

Attachments

  • Fluorescent_lighting_spectrum_labelled.gif
    Fluorescent_lighting_spectrum_labelled.gif
    17.8 KB · Views: 1,515

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Charlie said:
Here is the "spiky" spectrum of fluorescent lighting that Gabriel was talking about. Check out those spikes, that some alien type stuff right there!

Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Charlie said:
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.

katia over at Peatarian.com said:
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:

Ray Peat said:
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.

Extremely helpful.
Thanks Charlie!
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
gabriel79 said:
Hi Narouz,
For the "continuous" spectrum, I understand that Peat is referring to the typical daylight or incandescent bulb light, where the PSD (power spectral distribution) is "smooth" (even if they have a couple of maximums, most of the power is still in the whole bandwidth); contrasted to the "discrete" or spiky form of the fluorescent light PSD, where the power is basically in 3 or 4 spikes and very low power density in the rest of the spectrum bandwidth
From both Peat and the links provided by Katia I see that since the most beneficial band is the 850-590 nm, which means that incandescent normal and halogen bulbs would be best. I would expect "heat" lamps to not be that good or at least not much efficient, since they´re designed so that most of the energy is in the infrared part of the spectrum, which means at red they´re already giving low energy and not really giving much in the orange range (590-610nm band).

Thanks, gabriel79.
Most helpful!
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
I have to confess that I've sort of been hoping that
the Magic Peat Light
proves Not to be the Heat Lamps.

What a drag to sit for even minutes beneath 1000's of watts of bright, burning heat lamps!

I guess it has a lot to do with the apartment building I live in these days.
As soon as it get the slightest bit chilly,
they crank the whole building's heat up to like the mid 70's.
To keep it barely cool I have to keep the windows open all winter!

If I had to figure out how to use HEAT lamps in this place,
I would be running the AC to cool it down
during the winter
so I could blast myself with the heat lamps.

My friends would know for sure I was crazy.
 
OP
charlie

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
Regular ole incandescent lights are the best. Imagine that! :lol: Kind of ironic that it's hard to get ahold of higher wattage ones now. :banghead
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Charlie said:
Regular ole incandescent lights are the best. Imagine that! :lol: Kind of ironic that it's hard to get ahold of higher wattage ones now. :banghead

Well, I have complete faith in peatarian,
(and I just noticed that her post about lights
is indeed in this thread)
and she says that Peat said it was definitely the Heat lamps.
That's pretty compelling.

Of course, Peat himself wrote in a 1996 newletter
that he used multiple 150 watt incandescents,
and he said nothing of "heat lamps" or "infrared."

Peat has also said that he uses whatever kinds of lights it is
to heat up "his area" in the winter.
That does sound sorta like heat lamps, doesn't it...?

In short, and as I say, this is a bear of a Peat mystery.
(I've thought we should start a thread called
"Greatest Unsolved Peat Mysteries" :P )

I could get to the point where
I might just go with incandescents
even if I find out that he recommends heat lamps!
I mean, if he says the point is to have the best, most continuous, red light,
and if good science shows that incandescents clearly have that over heat lamps...
...well, I know it would be heresy,
but I might just have to become an apostate.
A Red Light Apostate.
 
OP
charlie

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
Well, I am settled on regular incandescents until someone can come along and prove it wrong. You can't argue with those graphs I posted. Incandescents are where it's at. Unless, I am totally missing something here.

I went today and priced the hardware to get er done. Depending on which bulbs I can get, I will either do 15 100 watt bulbs, or, 10 150 watt bulbs. Gonna do up a nice little light board and bask in my home made sun during the middle of winter. :whistle

Just need to get a source on 150 watt clear bulbs now.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
gabriel79 said:
Hi Narouz,
For the "continuous" spectrum, I understand that Peat is referring to the typical daylight or incandescent bulb light, where the PSD (power spectral distribution) is "smooth" (even if they have a couple of maximums, most of the power is still in the whole bandwidth); contrasted to the "discrete" or spiky form of the fluorescent light PSD, where the power is basically in 3 or 4 spikes and very low power density in the rest of the spectrum bandwidth
From both Peat and the links provided by Katia I see that since the most beneficial band is the 850-590 nm, which means that incandescent normal and halogen bulbs would be best. I would expect "heat" lamps to not be that good or at least not much efficient, since they´re designed so that most of the energy is in the infrared part of the spectrum, which means at red they´re already giving low energy and not really giving much in the orange range (590-610nm band).

This halogen bulb...
If you look on the HeelSpurs website
(funky website!)
there are some great charts and information.
Halogen might be a great possibility.
Peat said not enough studies to feel safe recommending.
He has to play it safe.
But personally, I want to know more about them.
They are much more powerful than incandescents.
I'd like to know if maybe they have that spikey, discontinuous spectrum of reds or something....
 

gabriel79

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
94
About the safety, Peat was talking about the sodium lights, not halogen. The former are used mostly outdoors because they give more light per watt. I've seen that sodium light spectrum includes more of the shorter (blue, violet, UV, etc), that's why some use them to grow plants in indoor greenhouses.
Also with sodium lights there's the risk of mercury poisoning if they break.
 

Kemby

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
63
Location
UK
From what I can glean it seems to me that a normal incandescent light bulb is the way to go as its all about the red light wavelengths.

I have been picking up info all over the place (Sorry I cant be more specific) but I am in agreement about this type of bulb being the most appropriate.
 
OP
charlie

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
Deeper down the rabbit hole we go. Hat tip to daz over at Peatarian.com.

daz found this summary about red light laser therapy. Here is an excerpt from the link I am attaching, you will need to scroll all the way down to the "summary to find this:

Visible red wavelengths (~620-690 nanometers) - shallow penetration - superficial tissue treatment, eg. wound healing, superficial APs, acne, etc.;

Infra-red wavelengths (~760-1260 nanometers) - deeper penetration - deeper tissue treatment, eg. musculoskeletal injuries, sports therapy, deeper APs and myofascial TPs, also wound healing,etc;

http://www.spectra-medics.com/llltinfo.html
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Charlie said:
Deeper down the rabbit hole we go. Hat tip to daz over at Peatarian.com.

daz found this summary about red light laser therapy. Here is an excerpt from the link I am attaching, you will need to scroll all the way down to the "summary to find this:

Visible red wavelengths (~620-690 nanometers) - shallow penetration - superficial tissue treatment, eg. wound healing, superficial APs, acne, etc.;

Infra-red wavelengths (~760-1260 nanometers) - deeper penetration - deeper tissue treatment, eg. musculoskeletal injuries, sports therapy, deeper APs and myofascial TPs, also wound healing,etc;

http://www.spectra-medics.com/llltinfo.html

And just so we're thoroughly confused,
if you go over to this website...
http://heelspurs.com/led.html
and scroll down about halfway to the section titled...

"Comparing halogen, incadescent, heat lamps, and the sun,"

...and look at the chart...



"Blackbody Radiation Spectrums"



...you will see that:

600--700nm, is labeled "Red"
700--1000nm is labeled "Near Infrared"

Those spectrums combined, 600--1000nm,
also coincide closely with spectrums of the chart
labeled as
"Penetrates Tissue" [625--900 nm]
and, in another chart called "Energy Intensity Spectrum of the Sun"

as "Beneficial" [610--910 nm]

Also noteworthy is that
the chart shows that
"skin heating begins" at 1000nm and continues upward.

"Near Infrared" I take to mean "under Infrared" or "below Infrared."

Combining all that data
it seems to me that the the analysis from
the website you link to, Charlie,
makes it sound like
all wavelengths above 760nm
"Infra-red wavelengths (~760-1260 nanometers)"
should be considered "infrared"
and therefore would be expected to produce skin heating.

But in fact (according to the charts at "heelspurs.com"),
skin heating does not begin until going above 1000nm.

Seems like the Spectra-Medics info
mis-labels the spectrum 760--1000nm
as "Infrared"
when it should be called
"Near Infrared."

The "spectra-medics.com" numbers
make it seem like
you have to get a Heat Lamp (infrared)
in order to produce the wavelengths from 760--1260 nm.
Well, a few questions:

1. Why are the wavelengths from 910--1260 desirable?
They are not "red," right? They are "infrared" and therefore "below red."

2. That leaves the 760--910 wavelengths from Infrared lights
as falling within the "beneficial" range (according the the Heelspurs chart).
"Red" light (again, Heelspurs) seems to be only the wavelengths 600-700nm.
So, if Peat says "red light" is what we want,
why get heat lamps/infrareds which start at 760nm (outside the range of "red light")
and extend upwards to 1260nm...?

3. This may seem to be a semantic quibble,
but it would seem to me that
"infrared" means "under red" and therefore Not red.
Whereas
"near infrared"
would mean something like
"close to infrared but still red."
If we Peatians are going for red light,
why would we want "infrared" (heat lamps)
which, by definition means "under red" and therefore Not red?
 

Attachments

  • Heelspurs chart.gif
    Heelspurs chart.gif
    4.1 KB · Views: 1,709
  • SOLAR.gif
    SOLAR.gif
    8.4 KB · Views: 1,710

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Hmmm...

Maybe the heat lamps (infrared)
have really got the "Near Infrared" completely owned.

If so, "near infrared," to me means that it is not-yet-below-red."
and so it is still
Red.

So maybe heat lamps get those reds,
while the regular incandescents...
I think they are very strong in the 600-700 range,
the true "red" range
as opposed to "near infrared."

Could be that
if Peat wants the most "continuous" spectrums of "red light"...
maybe a combo of regular incandescents and infrared incandescents...?
That way you'd cover all Reds
600--1000nm.

We need to know what Peat considers
the most desirable wavelengths.
"Red" is open to interpretation.
And then the "most continuous" thing--
that too is not perfectly clear.

The quest continues, for me.
I'd feel pretty good now doing just regular incandescents.
Maybe I'll come to think I should add a couple of infrareds.
And I want to know more about halogens.
Peat did, apparently, tell nwo2012
that he hadn't seen enough studies of halogens to feel right about recommending them,
in terms of safety.

Someone recently posted that Peat meant sodium lights, not halogen, in regard to safety,
but I'm pretty sure nwo2012 said Peat specifically hadn't seen enough studies on halogen.

Halogens have been around for a while now.
I used to have some big worklights received as a gift,
but I had to give them up.
People have worked under those kind of lights for years now.
Doesn't prove they are safe though.
The Heelspurs article provides this info bearing upon halogen lights:

Comparing halogen, incadescent, 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.
 

pete

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
139
Infrared Sauna Therapy
http://drlwilson.com/Articles/sauna_therapy.htm

[250-Watt Red Infrared Heat Bulbs]

Near infrared sauna therapy is one of the least costly, safest and most powerful ways to eliminate toxic metals, toxic chemicals and chronic infections.

Near infrared light saunas use incandescent infrared heat lamps for heating. They emit mainly near infrared, some middle infrared and perhaps a tiny amount of far infrared energy. This type of sauna also provides warming and stimulating color therapy. The lights emit a small amount of red, orange and yellow visible light. These particular frequencies draw energy downward in the body and can assist the digestive and eliminative organs to some degree.

While traditional saunas require high temperatures for copious sweating, infrared penetrates the skin and heats from the inside as well as on the skin. This means the air temperature in the sauna can remain cooler, yet one sweats plenty at this lower, more comfortable temperature.

The infrared lamp sauna penetrates deepest due to the fact that the heat source is all concentrated in a small area, and not due to the frequencies of the energy used. The rays may penetrate up to three inches or so, so the air temperature can stay coolest of all the types of saunas with the same effectiveness. While some people like the intense heat of the traditional sauna, many find it difficult to tolerate, especially those when feeling ill.

Near infrared is an antioxidant nutrient, activates the cells, supports metabolic processes and decouples toxins from water molecules. Near infrared is helpful for wound healing and cellular regeneration as well. Near infrared frequencies can also act as amplifiers of other frequencies that are in the vicinity of the heat lamps.

NOTES

It is the infrared range, not the red color that is important. Red light, in fact, is harmful, but not infrared. There is a little red in the infrared heat lamps, but not much, in fact. It is mostly orange and yellow with a little red and mostly infrared coming from the lamps. This is subtle but important to point out.

I spoke with a woman who experienced this. She shined a red heat lamp on her puppies and noticed how calm and happy they became. Then she used just a red lamp from the store. Then animals did not like it at all. She concluded there was a difference in the lights, but she did not know what it was.

Here is the difference. Infrared looks like red to the eye. It is different, however, and the heat lamp is “tuned” to produce a lot of infrared with a special filament design. In contrast, a red light bulb is just an incandescent lamp with a red filter. They are quite opposite in their effects.

Infrared is healing, while red is highly irritating and stimulating. If one sat in sauna with just red lights, many would hate the sauna. Instead, most people report they are calmed and healed by the infrared sauna frequencies. The small bit of red light does not bother them.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
pete said:
Infrared Sauna Therapy
http://drlwilson.com/Articles/sauna_therapy.htm

[250-Watt Red Infrared Heat Bulbs]

Near infrared sauna therapy is one of the least costly, safest and most powerful ways to eliminate toxic metals, toxic chemicals and chronic infections.

Near infrared light saunas use incandescent infrared heat lamps for heating. They emit mainly near infrared, some middle infrared and perhaps a tiny amount of far infrared energy....The lights emit a small amount of red, orange and yellow visible light....

Red light, in fact, is harmful, but not infrared. There is a little red in the infrared heat lamps, but not much, in fact. It is mostly orange and yellow with a little red and mostly infrared coming from the lamps. This is subtle but important to point out.

Interesting stuff there, Pete.
According to this source:

1. "Red Light," which is what we usually think of as the Peat-preferred kind of light therapy, is "in fact, is harmful, but not infrared."
2. The bulbs used in infrared saunas "emit mainly near infrared."

I stress again that this info comes from...

Infrared Sauna Therapy
http://drlwilson.com/Articles/sauna_therapy.htm

...but, playing along,
this would mean that the visible "red light" spectrum
--the one we've been thinking is the one Peat recommends--
is actually harmful.
This is the spectrum--around 600-700nm, I think--
that is well-produced by regular (non-heating, non-infrared) incandescent bulbs.

But the Near Infrared spectrum
which I think runs from around 700-1000nm,
(according to this source)
is supposedly the "healing spectrum" (let us say).

Maybe this is consonant with Peat,
if we consider that Peat,
when saying "red light,"
did not really mean red light in the sense of
the visible red light spectrum.

Maybe when Peat recommends "red light,"
he is actually referring more to the "near infrared" spectrum,
roughly 700-1000nm,
or possibly to both spectrums combined--
visible red light plus near infrared--
the spectrum of approximately 600--1000nm.

If we find that Peat definitely recommends heat lamps/infrared,
then he must prefer the 700-1000, near infrared range,
because I don't think heat lamps emit much energy in the 600-700nm range.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Distilled Question for Dr. Peat

To streamline a bit,
and to lay the basis for a question
(should someone feel like asking)
for Dr. Peat...

Dr. Peat has said that the most therapeutic kind of light
is red light
and red light which is most continuous
(not just a couple of peaks, but even distribution of energy within the red spectrum).

So...that's where we're at.

Now, if someone could ask Peat
what he means by "red light."
Does he mean visible red light,
near infrared light,
or both?

To go a step further in clarification,
we might ask him what wavelengths he thinks are ideal:
600-700nm (visible red),
700-1000nm (near infrared),
both,
or other wavelengths?
 

pete

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
139
I do remember reading about using visible red light to save a dog's vision after it drank antifreeze.

Visible radiation in the red, orange and yellow color range appears to stimulate the lower body organs, including the organs of elimination - the liver, kidneys and large intestines. This is an excellent added benefit. Colored lamps can be added to any sauna, but this requires extra wiring and cost, and a different bench arrangement in most instances. In contrast, it is built-in to the design of the near infrared lamp sauna. - LW
Maybe that's why he recommends the "red" heat lamp, not the clear one, but the source is mostly infra-red light (the incandescent element), with a red tint.

Also, an infrared lamp sauna emits mainly near and some middle infrared energy. Plenty of research supports the fact that this type of infrared is extremely beneficial for the human organism. It assists healing and regeneration of all the cells, glands and organs. It also relaxes the body more than far infrared, which is somewhat irritating to certain tissues. - LW
It truly is soothing and relaxing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom