23 replies to this topic

[Pord]

Hey everyone,

After doing a little research I thought that this might be interesting to post. I would like to see what you all think about this.

Here are a few abstracts from this site: http://heelspurs.com/led.html#skin - If you use LEDs check this out.

1. LED light arrays are a means to provide these wavelengths. Companies may claim lasers and pulse rates are important, but the only things are the wavelength and total amount of light energy applied. For example, 880 nm is a bad choice. Bright noon-time summer Sun only has half as much light energy as LED devices in the optimum wavelengths, but it covers the entire body (which is good for fibromyalgia). The advantages of LEDs over sunlight are: 1) LEDs can be applied at any time, 2) LEDs require only one hour instead of two hours for injuries beneath the skin, 3) LEDs don't cause sunburn

2.Skin: Wrinkles, Acne, Scars, and Spots
Simple LED devices for use at home do not work on wrinkles, aging, or scars. Wrinkles are old, fixated collagen, like scars. LEDs repair recent injuries in cells that need more energy. This is the only way they work. There is no reason to believe this will reduce existing scars or wrinkles. Pictures of wrinkles before and after are not comparable because the angle of the lighting and the amount of smiling drastically changes things. I found only one journal article (see below) that indicated simple red and infrared light energy can help.

^ The above can be found in the article that I linked.

Anyways, most people on here buy from the LED man and what not well, look at what it says about the 880nm. 880nm is what he uses in the infra-red that he commonly sells.

Also, I would like to comment that the inflammation stage is important to heal your skin - so why would you want to take that away.


If I am wrong on anything that I have said please correct me. I have been considering LEDs, but I came across this and now I am not so sure.

Pord

Edited by Pord, 27 February 2012 - 01:09 PM.

[Nyssa]

The use of LEDs for wound healing and collagen production is based off of NASA research. Although the LEDs do have anti-inflammatory properties, they also promote fibroblast and collagen production. I know, seems counter-intuitive. Keep in mind, we are talking about wound healing (as with dermarolling), not just using it on existing scars without injury. Here are some links to a few articles (I hope they work). The first one is probably the easiest to read because it gives an overview of the research in the beginning two pages:

http://www.nymfe.be/...e-with-nasa.pdf


http://epublications...=dentistry_fac"

http://dpltherapy.de...abetic Mice.pdf


http://www.scirp.org...px?paperID=8844

[pursuit of happyness]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

[Pord]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

Do you have any studies to back that up?

[Nyssa]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

Do you have any studies to back that up?

Go to my earlier post and read the articles I have linked.

[Nyssa]

And here are a few more links. Some of these are just abstracts, and some relate to combining LEDs with laser resurfacing, but the underlying premise is the same.

http://www.laser.sk/...ky/Clinical.pdf

http://www.touchbrie...2163/ACF420.pdf

http://www.sciencedi...615161506000548

[Pord]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

Do you have any studies to back that up?

Go to my earlier post and read the articles I have linked.

http://www.scirp.org...x?paperID=8844 - Does this happen to say the wavelength?

So the only thing that says that 880 infra-red is good is the NASA study. . . .

What I posted (I hope you read the entire article) says that 880 is not good.

I just want to know if these things actually help or not.

I can't seem to find anything positive about the "yellow" lights.

Edited by Pord, 28 February 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[Nyssa]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

Do you have any studies to back that up?

Go to my earlier post and read the articles I have linked.

http://www.scirp.org...x?paperID=8844 - Does this happen to say the wavelength?

So the only thing that says that 880 infra-red is good is the NASA study. . . .

What I posted (I hope you read the entire article) says that 880 is not good.

I just want to know if these things actually help or not.

I can't seem to find anything positive about the "yellow" lights.

The yellow light is discussed in the first article on my second posting of links, I believe. I believe the other articles in that posting talk about infra-red at 830. The Whalen article does say "Optimal light wavelengths (proven in prior studies of laser and LED light)to speed wound healing include 680, 730, and 880 nm."

I was not terribly impressed by the heelspur article because the author appeared to come to the topic with an agenda -- to disprove the usefuleness of LEDs. It came to the conclusion that LEDs will not help existing scars without considering how most people are actually using them -- to help heal scars they re-injure through needling, dermarolling, etc. People can have theories about how this stuff is supposed to work, but the studies are what will prove it out in the end. So far, from the research I've done, it appears LEDs will help wound healing. The heelspur article doesn't suggest 880 is "bad", just that it may not be as good as 830 or 850. Whether one uses an 830 or 880 may or may not make a difference.

I would encourage people who are looking into this topic to look for the earlier posts by Munsoned and Lamarr. Both tried dermarolling/needling, both ended up getting some benefit from LEDs. Lamarr was the one who really did the initial research on this. I'm not sure either one of them post that much anymore.

If anyone has any concerns about using LEDs with needling, I would suggest not using them in the beginning. See how your skin reacts to just the needling. If it works, no LEDs necessary. If the results aren't coming, consider giving LEDs a shot. No harm done.

[Pord]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

Do you have any studies to back that up?

Go to my earlier post and read the articles I have linked.

http://www.scirp.org...x?paperID=8844 - Does this happen to say the wavelength?

So the only thing that says that 880 infra-red is good is the NASA study. . . .

What I posted (I hope you read the entire article) says that 880 is not good.

I just want to know if these things actually help or not.

I can't seem to find anything positive about the "yellow" lights.

The yellow light is discussed in the first article on my second posting of links, I believe. I believe the other articles in that posting talk about infra-red at 830. The Whalen article does say "Optimal light wavelengths (proven in prior studies of laser and LED light)to speed wound healing include 680, 730, and 880 nm."

I was not terribly impressed by the heelspur article because the author appeared to come to the topic with an agenda -- to disprove the usefuleness of LEDs. It came to the conclusion that LEDs will not help existing scars without considering how most people are actually using them -- to help heal scars they re-injure through needling, dermarolling, etc. People can have theories about how this stuff is supposed to work, but the studies are what will prove it out in the end. So far, from the research I've done, it appears LEDs will help wound healing. The heelspur article doesn't suggest 880 is "bad", just that it may not be as good as 830 or 850. Whether one uses an 830 or 880 may or may not make a difference.

I would encourage people who are looking into this topic to look for the earlier posts by Munsoned and Lamarr. Both tried dermarolling/needling, both ended up getting some benefit from LEDs. Lamarr was the one who really did the initial research on this. I'm not sure either one of them post that much anymore.

If anyone has any concerns about using LEDs with needling, I would suggest not using them in the beginning. See how your skin reacts to just the needling. If it works, no LEDs necessary. If the results aren't coming, consider giving LEDs a shot. No harm done.

Thanks for taking the time to post.

Thank you for pointing out the yellow lights to me.

Actually, the heelspur article says exactly that 880 is a bad choice.

I have read the posts done by Lamarr and Munsoned. I actually talk to Munsoned quite frequently, so I am familiar with how he feels regarding LEDs. – I also agree; if you have not read their posts and this is something you consider I recommend that you do so.

Thanks for taking the time to post all of those links. If you have any more please post them here. I appreciate it.

[Pord]

So with all of these different posts and studies what would be the best wavelength for each light (red, infra-red, and yellow)?

Edit:

I figured it would be worth it to mention that I spoke with Dr. Fernandes and he said that he has used the 633nm red and the 830nm infra-red.

Edited by Pord, 28 February 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[rimram]

So with all of these different posts and studies what would be the best wavelength for each light (red, infra-red, and yellow)?

Edit:

I figured it would be worth it to mention that I spoke with Dr. Fernandes and he said that he has used the 633nm red and the 830nm infra-red.

The short answer to this is that no one really knows at this point. You have to consider that there are many different photoacceptors that may or may not influence the cells in different ways. If you're willing to dig deep, I'd suggest that you look up some of the work done by Tiina Karu, who is the leading researcher in LLLT, as it seems. She has done some interesting action spectra studies on cell cultures of HeLa cells that should be applicable to any other human cell line as well.

I do not believe yellow light to be very effective. While it is true that there once was a medical device, "GentleWaves," that used 590 nm diodes, there is not much proof of its efficacy. There are a few studies based on this device (e.g. the one Nyssa linked,) but all of them afaik are based on self-assesment tests, which is far from any valid, scientific proof. The problem with wavelengths below 600 nm is that they will be absorbed heavily by oxyhemoglobin. This may cause superficial heating and some swelling, thus giving a false impression of that it "works," but does in fact do little on a cellular level. The fluences used in the GentleWaves studies are also very low (0.1 J/cm2 or less.) The company that made the GentleWaves is now defunct, which IMO says something about its efficacy.

Your doc probably uses the Omnilux system. 633 nm is not optimal if you look at Karu's action spectra, but it is a wavelength that has much backing in scientific studies from the early discoveries of the beneficial effects of the HeNe laser running at 632.8 nm.

[DudleyDoRight]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

Do you have any studies to back that up?

A good skeptic, you are!

[pursuit of happyness]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

Do you have any studies to back that up?

A good skeptic, you are!

what u mean by that?

[DudleyDoRight]

You just expressed your opinion, and that is fine, but many produce statements based solely on anecdotal evidence that influences others for or against treatments that could help or harm them.

[Pord]

i don't belive that led light alone will make something to scars,but when combined with derma roller,needling, and some topicals like vitamin c,copper peptides and peels,i think here it will speed healing and absorb products by good way..

Do you have any studies to back that up?

A good skeptic, you are!

I just want the facts. You are rubbing off on me a bit.

So with all of these different posts and studies what would be the best wavelength for each light (red, infra-red, and yellow)?

Edit:

I figured it would be worth it to mention that I spoke with Dr. Fernandes and he said that he has used the 633nm red and the 830nm infra-red.

The short answer to this is that no one really knows at this point. You have to consider that there are many different photoacceptors that may or may not influence the cells in different ways. If you're willing to dig deep, I'd suggest that you look up some of the work done by Tiina Karu, who is the leading researcher in LLLT, as it seems. She has done some interesting action spectra studies on cell cultures of HeLa cells that should be applicable to any other human cell line as well.

I do not believe yellow light to be very effective. While it is true that there once was a medical device, "GentleWaves," that used 590 nm diodes, there is not much proof of its efficacy. There are a few studies based on this device (e.g. the one Nyssa linked,) but all of them afaik are based on self-assesment tests, which is far from any valid, scientific proof. The problem with wavelengths below 600 nm is that they will be absorbed heavily by oxyhemoglobin. This may cause superficial heating and some swelling, thus giving a false impression of that it "works," but does in fact do little on a cellular level. The fluences used in the GentleWaves studies are also very low (0.1 J/cm2 or less.) The company that made the GentleWaves is now defunct, which IMO says something about its efficacy.

Your doc probably uses the Omnilux system. 633 nm is not optimal if you look at Karu's action spectra, but it is a wavelength that has much backing in scientific studies from the early discoveries of the beneficial effects of the HeNe laser running at 632.8 nm.

I will look into that.

So in your opinion do you think a handheld device such as the one that LED man makes would be sufficient to produce results?

Also, when I spoke with Dr. Fernandes (I am pretty sure you recognize the name) he said that he used the Omnilux.

Edited by Pord, 29 February 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[Nyssa]

I tend to agree with rimram on this. The research is relatively recent, somewhat difficult to find, and not always consistent. The usefulness of yellow LEDs are probably the most questionable, though I doubt they hurt anything. Most of the more recent studies/articles seem to use the 633 and 830 in the red and near infrared. I suspect other wavelengths will still work, but they may be less effective.

I use the LED man's handheld device and I believe it is helping. I figure if nothing else it forces me to sit down for 15 minutes and relax, which is a good thing in and of itself!

[Pord]

I tend to agree with rimram on this. The research is relatively recent, somewhat difficult to find, and not always consistent. The usefulness of yellow LEDs are probably the most questionable, though I doubt they hurt anything. Most of the more recent studies/articles seem to use the 633 and 830 in the red and near infrared. I suspect other wavelengths will still work, but they may be less effective.

I use the LED man's handheld device and I believe it is helping. I figure if nothing else it forces me to sit down for 15 minutes and relax, which is a good thing in and of itself!

So do you think it would be worth getting the 633 and 830 in the red and infrared? As opposed to the 660 and 880?
Which LED man advice do you use?

[Nyssa]

I use his 590/660/880. It has separate controls for all 3, so you can select which ones to use if you don't want to use all 3 at once for any reason. I don't know how much the 633 and 830 cost to say whether they would be worth it. If they work in your budget, I would say give them a shot. Those wavelengths appear to be what researchers/practitioners are using these days. I'm going off the earlier research and the fact Lamarr, Munsoned and others posted decent results with the 590/660/880.

[Pord]

I use his 590/660/880. It has separate controls for all 3, so you can select which ones to use if you don't want to use all 3 at once for any reason. I don't know how much the 633 and 830 cost to say whether they would be worth it. If they work in your budget, I would say give them a shot. Those wavelengths appear to be what researchers/practitioners are using these days. I'm going off the earlier research and the fact Lamarr, Munsoned and others posted decent results with the 590/660/880.

I know that the 633 is about the same price as an 660. I may just stick to the 660 though if I do end up getting some (I am not sure at this point).

I know that the 830 is slightly more expensive - something like 60 US.

Edited by Pord, 01 March 2012 - 10:15 AM.

[Pord]

So with all of these different posts and studies what would be the best wavelength for each light (red, infra-red, and yellow)?

Edit:

I figured it would be worth it to mention that I spoke with Dr. Fernandes and he said that he has used the 633nm red and the 830nm infra-red.

The short answer to this is that no one really knows at this point. You have to consider that there are many different photoacceptors that may or may not influence the cells in different ways. If you're willing to dig deep, I'd suggest that you look up some of the work done by Tiina Karu, who is the leading researcher in LLLT, as it seems. She has done some interesting action spectra studies on cell cultures of HeLa cells that should be applicable to any other human cell line as well.

I do not believe yellow light to be very effective. While it is true that there once was a medical device, "GentleWaves," that used 590 nm diodes, there is not much proof of its efficacy. There are a few studies based on this device (e.g. the one Nyssa linked,) but all of them afaik are based on self-assesment tests, which is far from any valid, scientific proof. The problem with wavelengths below 600 nm is that they will be absorbed heavily by oxyhemoglobin. This may cause superficial heating and some swelling, thus giving a false impression of that it "works," but does in fact do little on a cellular level. The fluences used in the GentleWaves studies are also very low (0.1 J/cm2 or less.) The company that made the GentleWaves is now defunct, which IMO says something about its efficacy.

Your doc probably uses the Omnilux system. 633 nm is not optimal if you look at Karu's action spectra, but it is a wavelength that has much backing in scientific studies from the early discoveries of the beneficial effects of the HeNe laser running at 632.8 nm.

Did GentleWaves only use the yellow light?