https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=near+i...
I got to try a prototype LED helmet that blasts 90 watts of lensed, circumspaced NIR beams through the skull for 4 minutes. I can say that an hour later it leaves me feeling mildly buzzed. The main effect I can identify is a mild and general sense of stamina/energy. I used it before/after an all-nighter and didn't feel as impacted as I should have; analogous to how you feel the next morning after drinking at age 20 vs. age 30. All anecdotal of course.
They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
How many well-designed double-blind studies in humans? That’s the question
Edit: found a wiki with more details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode_therapy#P...
>as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress
That sounds like something I'd be very wary of manipulating without a good deal of clinical trials. Isn't oxidative stress one of like three primary hypothesized mechanisms of aging?
This is why humans have to actively overcome and sometimes subvert various mechanisms that presume the need to conserve the energy: they hit a gym which the body doesn't like, they limit sugars and fats which the body craves, they consume caffeine, nicotine, or even cocaine to trick the body into working harder and complaining less.
Compared to that, hitting the body with some NIR radiation seems very benign. You can get a lot of that just by walking in the sun, and there are no known adverse effects of that, unlike, say the use of the chemical substances. If anything, it's a promising field of research.
Other than sunburn and skin cancer?
For the panel, 1800W is a LOT of power to put through 2 feet. Is it actually 1800W? What wavelengths? PWM?
I've been using a NIR belt flipped inside out on my pillow the last few weeks. It's only 6W of 850nm, but I've been feeling less dumb recently. Not sure if it's correlated, but until I settle it for sure, I'm going to keep on using it.
I just dug out the spec sheet for the other device and you're right. It says "LED Power Class 1800W", but lists power consumption as 350W.
I really like it's potential to improve the right kind of symptoms when applied correctly and I'm also wary of people with bottom line incentives filling in any scientific uncertainty with miracle cures. But I agree, it's definitely worth using. It's a one time purchase with no side effects, so the worst case risk is just disappointment.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10103-024-04024-z
To achieve a neuroprotective effect, PBM must overcome several barriers, including bone tissue, a complex structure with variable optical properties
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/neurophotonics/v...
Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a near-infrared (NIR) light-based therapy technique and has shown therapeutic effectiveness for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including MDD. The transcranial PBM (t-PBM) technique delivers NIR light through the scalp and skull.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/1...
Near-infrared spectroscopy in the brain is made possible by the relative transparency of biological tissues (including bone) to light for infrared wavelengths ranging from 650 to 925 nm.
Penetration of light from an 820 nm gallium-aluminum-arsenium laser diode through a sample of fresh human skin. Data extrapolated from data presented in Kolari (25) and shown in the blue columns. A line of regression is shown by the black dotted line. The regression line indicates that light from a low-power laser diode can penetrate less than 2.2 mm into human skin.
This says that a 820nm laser penetrate 2.2mm into human skin. That is 0.08 inches. That is about the width of a groove on the top of your finger. How does that square with saying that it could go through skull bone that is 3.5x as thick while being more dense than tissue?
We have demonstrated that our multi-watt NIR data delivers an estimated 1.65–3.7 J/cm2 to a depth of 30 mm. As shown above, this is within the biologically meaningful fluence range (1, 2, 4, 6, 47) and is more than 100-fold greater than the fluence delivered by an LED system or by a low-power infrared light system according to the findings of the authors cited above (7, 18, 21, 37, 38, 48).
and
Patients receiving 10–20 treatments of multi-watt infrared light, each lasting approximately 20–30 min, have experienced significant, and often, dramatic improvements (47, 48). The fluence of combined 810 and 980 nm light delivered during each of these treatments was, on average, 81 J/cm2/treatment. Correcting for forehead skin, skull, and 1 cm of brain tissue, this delivered a fluence of fluence of 0.41 J/cm2 to the neurons 1 cm below the cortical surface.
The authors paper listed as citation #4 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/NDT.S78182#medi...) has more detail on his methods, and the abstract sums it up pretty well:
NIR in the power range of 10–15 W at 810 and 980 nm can provide fluence within the range shown to be biologically beneficial at 3 cm depth. You can't ELI5 more than that.
Understanding does take work, and given your posting history of mostly low effort negative snark, I probably spent more time than I should have. But it was an interesting diversion into something I otherwise wouldn't have known.
Instead of light getting through bone you said
From your own link:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3...
Now, the skin of the forehead overlying a portion of the frontal lobes is approximately 2 mm thick. It is possible that tiny amounts of infrared light from lower powered emitters could penetrate the forehead skin; however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin. Nevertheless, the remainder of the scalp, over which hoods, helmets, and posteriorly placed LED pads are emitting low-power light, is an average of 5.1–5.8 mm thick.
Simply put, it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head if the light energy from that LED cannot penetrate through human skin further than 3 mm. The energy of low-power devices simply will not penetrate the thickness of the scalp overlying much of the skull.
Some have suggested that NIR energy from low-power devices penetrates deeper if longer exposure times are used. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles that scatter, absorption, and refraction play in degrading NIR energy as it passes through tissue.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue – often several cm below the surface.
Longer exposure times will simply pump more energy into the epidermis and dermis of the skin/scalp.
Longer exposure times do not yield deeper penetration. These limitations on penetration only take into consideration the skin and scalp; however, the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light, because people can't see it (and possibly no animals can). If you drop the frequency enough something will get through (a tiny percent) and if you keep calling it light then you can make the false claim that light passes through bone, when we know that isn't true because we can see bones and they aren't transparent. We could say radio waves pass though people too and therefore light goes right though people.
The siren cry of ignorance everywhere.
however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin.
Yes. The study discusses this. Its why the researchers moved to more powerful sources. To provide the results you refuse to read. Which I explicitly pointed out in my reply so you didn't have to worry about struggling with reading comprehension yourself. Which you ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.
it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head
Yes, that is what the researchers said. LEDs don't have enough power; they measured that. That's why they didn't use regular LEDs. And they measured that change. And gave you the parameters of their setup for you to check (well, not you...for people into facts and science and such). And cited the people who had similar results. And cited people who had different results. And other science things that people who actually read this stuff for comprehension appreciate. That you ignore.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue
Different...energy? Physics would like a word with you. But physics does expect you to have done your homework, so I'll let it know you won't be around any time soon. I told it to be nice, and remember not everyone has a high school level understanding of physics, and they might say silly things. Be excellent to each other and all that.
often several cm below the surface.
Yeah. How about 3cm? Like the researchers said. In their measurements. That they didn't guess at.
the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well
Yes. The researchers discuss skulls in detail. Not just people skulls...sheep skulls and mice skulls too. 3cm on people; all the way through in mice. Sheep somewhere between. And a lot about hands, but I don't figure you care about those. They wrote it down and it got published. After actually doing the science.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light
There it is! Ding ding! The audience watching at home knew this was coming.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!" a couple of exchanges back and moved on to easier targets with less annoying 'facts' and 'proof' and 'published works of science by experts' around for anyone who cared to check. I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium.
Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
I did mention this in my first reply, I don't know why you feel the need for this manic response.
I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium. Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
I don't understand where these insults are coming from. It doesn't seem like you're addressing that lower frequency EM that no animal can see isn't light. Saying "WTF and LOL" and trying to be patronizing doesn't confront what I posted.
You realize for most of your post you are replying to your own source right? I didn't write that, I took it from your link and put the most relevant stuff in italics. When you are quoting "Simply put" and replying: "The siren cry of ignorance everywhere." that's from your link, not me.
Though there’s a bit in the middle where it matches the resonant frequency of water molecules, yes.
Please do.
I have been exploring red light therapy using cheapo panels as well as fischer wallace devices (and have the OAK preordered via the IPO stock options), so I'm definitely trying out all the 'technologic approaches' since traditional medicine has been largely of no use (shout out to ondandestrone though, the best nausea suppresant I know of which can help fend off the migraince/vomiting episodes).
All that to say: Is your friend interested in any more TBI test subjects? Happy to pay for the device assuming I can afford it and provide detailed notes to help with any studies; this sounds like exactly the type of thing I need to try next.
No worries if not, but figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
I think the commercial model here is a tanning bed config with LED tubes. Goggles on, hop in the healing tube.
What's the most convincing argument for it?
I've seen obvious lies on some product descriptions on internet listings, therefore I wouldn't trust a specification claim like "x nm" or "y lumen", and unless I had tools to measure them I would not rely on them meeting those specifications.
e.g. even when it's about visible light, well, do you trust this claim of 500,000 lumen?: https://www.amazon.de/Shadowhawk-Rechargeable-Extremely-Wate...
Having watched Torque Test Channel test[0] these[1] kinds[2] of claims, no, no I do not.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp8dumORMA0
The main science behind it is to hit the absorption peaks of a mitochondrial enzyme. You can make em bright, but be limited on how long you can use it, or dim and be forced to use it constantly for the same effect.
Pulse width modulation is very important in this for penetration. High intensity allows for deeper penetration, but heats up cells causing stress. The ideal scenario is a really strong light, run at a really low duty cycle, allowing for both intensity AND low average wattage, this lessening thermal issues
There might be other mechanisms of actions, as there are so many papers that say "light good", but until they can give a mechanism of action, I'm sticking with what I know
Without a controlled study, as an individual, how can I tell if my sprain got better in 6 days but would've taken 9 days otherwise???
People usually hear about this stuff peer to peer and they report back to their peers if it helped or not, so there is a before and after, and for those people there isn’t a selection criteria biased on success. If people don’t report back then others become very interested in why.
Insulin and Ozempic are both bioactive peptides, which is not to say BPC157 is anywhere as strong as either of them, but it's not easily dismissed either. Nowhere near the absurdities of ghosts and homeopathy.
We also know that, despite the vast quantities of anecdotal evidence readily available, taking 500% of your recommended daily value of Vitamin C will not actually effect the duration of your upper-respiratory tract infection. In fact, even ignoring the quality control issues in many commercial supplements, sometimes you can't even treat the deficiency of a specific nutrient with oral supplementation. And yet, again, many people will happily attest to the lifechanging benefits of supplementation to counteract a deficiency they likely never had.
Pain comes as you age. It isn’t unique to modern man, other than we typically live longer than ancient man.
If you do this plan you can still cheat. Drink, party, eat whatever. You invest effort so you can enjoy life when the moment arises.
Trying to decide which one to get.
I’ve got the AW Ultra and I’m quite fond of it, ability to use it without carrying my phone (even audible audiobooks) is the killer for me.
Hardware-wise they're largely similar, with some additional edge use cases (depending on who you are ofc) for fitness and outdoors with Garmin.
On the Garmin side for software, one thing I really appreciated on Garmin was the "body battery", or estimate of your energy, as well as health trends, etc. Apple has caught up with many of the features in the last year, and has a little ways to go. Apps like Athlytic do a good job filling the gap, but Apple really is making that gap quite small. Garmin locks your workout data down to its garden somewhat limiting your exports and has it more readily cloud accessible than I'd prefer; I felt the Apple privacy protections were better after reading the TOCs and looking at how the data is stored on each service.
What ultimately made me decide to go with Apple Watch is the above data consideration, the smooth functionality and integration with my iPhone, and the rapid pace of development Apple has had. Also, the cellular, texting (not saying it's the preferred method), Apple pay, etc. are all great to have on the Apple Watch and I can go for a run with only that.
After I paid more attention to my body metrics, I also changed my habits and started focusing on hydration more, when I drank alcohol and how much, and I was able to make good choices that help me feel much better to tackle the next day.
Aside from raw sensor metrics, as someone else said, their Body Battery is pretty decent. The biggest thing for me was seeing a long tail chart for things like sleep score, HRV, average resting heart rate etc and noticing sharp differences on days that I was either sick or drinking alcohol. The effects of a couple of beers on me was similar to COVID (except that they only lasted about 24 hours). But these are things you'll get with any device with long enough battery life that you'll wear it "all the time"
The overwhelming majority of people would benefit from doing resistance training 3x a week, cardio 3x a week, and shifting their diet towards more protein and less carbs and fat. People who fall outside of the large majority due to specific medical conditions need to understand their medical conditions and how they impact their daily life, because expecting everyone else to always take into account these issues is unreasonable and unproductive.
To be frank, this is a dumb point. The morbidly obese person probably can’t even run for 30 seconds. It won’t destroy their joints for the rest of their life. Suggesting activity over inactivity is good advice for basically every human alive.
Suggesting activity is good, yes, but suggesting someone should start with lifting specifically when they have issues with their joints without any further context is moronic.
(FWIW, to counter your personal experience with some of my own anecdotal evidence, I always sleep much better on firm mattresses.)
As for your question well you basically just have to trust the science. At some point a rat in a lab probably was intentionally injured next to another rat in the same position and one would get the treatment and the other not. They would then see who healed faster. Things like Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen have been around a long time and studied extensively so they have a good understanding of it's efficacy.
Lastly placebo effect seems to be a real effect so if you do something and you think it might help it might help.
Vitamin I is not, well, actually a vitamin.
Seems all that inflammation might actually be doing something.
I think your hesitance is valid