5 replies to this topic

[Nate-2004]

I've been operating for the last month under the assumption that near infrared light is really good for skin, especially where producing collagen and elasticity is concerned. Not only that but the NIR light I bought last month has had not only noticeable positive results for my facial skin but it's nearly cured my lower back pain if not become the only primary treatment that has ever worked. Most studies I've read came from a Google search but some came from reading about infrared saunas and the positive effects of saunas in general. 

 

Now here I am tonight, reading articles and studies that claim the *exact opposite*. That NIR is bad for you and FIR is even worse. That it is cancer promoting and makes your skin age. These are the exact opposite conclusions from the studies I read claiming that NIR is good skin therapy and rejuvenates skin and collagen.

 

My persistent lack of lower back pain is saying one thing while these articles in this search such as this one say another. Rhonda Patrick is going on and on about saunas citing study after study while other articles talk about baker's arms and the awful effects of heat exposure.

 

Which is it? Is near infrared light good or bad for you? It's irritating just how many conflicting claims there are about this. Am I going insane?

 

I'm about to conclude that everything that is bad for you is good for you and bad for you simultaneously and nothing is good or bad or anything.

 

Saturated fat was bad now it's neutral, eggs were bad now they're fine and even good for you. Is anything true for longer than 20 years?

 

Then there's the fact that the FDA is approving these devices for therapy. Not that the FDA has any credibility with me, but WTF is going on?

 

 

Edited by Nate-2004, 09 March 2017 - 05:01 AM.

[aconita]

Here you have the answer to your question:

 

http://www.sciencedi...011134415300713

 

Photobiomodulation exposure to visible and IR-A light which emulates the conditions of natural sunlight in wavelength, intensity, and dosage can be beneficial to the skin. Such light exposure might even pre-condition the skin, preparing it for upcoming (mid-day zenithal) UVR insults. On the other hand, exposure to artificial IR-A radiation of too broad of a range and intensity/dose can contribute to existing detrimental effects or cause negative effects of its own (increased MMP-1). Several studies (2, 13, 14, 43, 49, 51–55) demonstrate the damaging effects of IR-A radiation in the skin both in vitro and in vivo. However, they use high-intensity artificial IR-A light sources that do not reproduce real-life daily sun exposure. The IR-A emitted by the sun and reaching the skin is not of such high intensity.

 

In other words, as usual, it is the dose the makes the poison.

 

In your case too much time under the light and/or being to close to it in such a way to get a marked increase in skin temperature would likely be deleterious while a milder approach will result as beneficial.

 

If how you are doing is leading to positive results you are doing it right.

 

Sometimes it is just that simple... 

 

[Nate-2004]

Here you have the answer to your question:

 

http://www.sciencedi...011134415300713

 

Photobiomodulation exposure to visible and IR-A light which emulates the conditions of natural sunlight in wavelength, intensity, and dosage can be beneficial to the skin. Such light exposure might even pre-condition the skin, preparing it for upcoming (mid-day zenithal) UVR insults. On the other hand, exposure to artificial IR-A radiation of too broad of a range and intensity/dose can contribute to existing detrimental effects or cause negative effects of its own (increased MMP-1). Several studies (2, 13, 14, 43, 49, 51–55) demonstrate the damaging effects of IR-A radiation in the skin both in vitro and in vivo. However, they use high-intensity artificial IR-A light sources that do not reproduce real-life daily sun exposure. The IR-A emitted by the sun and reaching the skin is not of such high intensity.

 

In other words, as usual, it is the dose the makes the poison.

 

In your case too much time under the light and/or being to close to it in such a way to get a marked increase in skin temperature would likely be deleterious while a milder approach will result as beneficial.

 

If how you are doing is leading to positive results you are doing it right.

 

Sometimes it is just that simple... 

 

 

I guess I'm doing it right then, about 10 to 20 mins a day per body part.

 

This one says it destroys collagen?

 

So, what exactly does infrared, and IRA in particular, do to the skin? One notable effects is that IRA increases the production of matrix metalloproteinases, particularly MMP-1 (aka fibroblast collagenase) in dermal fibroblasts, the cells most critical to skin's vitality and youthful appearance. MMP-1 digests several types of collagen (I, II, III, VII and X). While appropriate level of MMP-1 activity is necessary (for skin maintenance as well as remodeling after injury) an abnormally high one, as in the case of infrared exposure, causes excessive collagen destruction. Furthermore, IRA appears to inhibit the expression of some collagen-encoding genes, which results in a decreased collagen synthesis. Taken together, these effects lead to weakening of the skin matrix, formation of wrinkles and thinning of the dermis – all hallmarks of skin aging. Other pro-aging effects of IRA include activation of inflammatory reactions; excessive cell division (and hence accelerated accumulation of senescent cells); and excessive growth of blood vessels (potentially leading to persistent skin redness). See this review article for more biological details.

 

P.S. EDIT: I realized the site saying it doesn't penetrate into muscle is some kind of crazy loon site that talks about aliens. Not sure why I didn't notice that the first time.

Edited by Nate-2004, 13 March 2017 - 03:14 PM.

[Oakman]

I'm sure you have more anecdotal experience with the results your IR lamp now (if you still use it), but here's another thought. Rather than use that heat producing incandescent source, I would venture LED IR would be a safer bet.... like these. First, you eliminate most frequencies you don't want that allows you to eliminate most of the potentially damaging heat radiation.  

 

I have one of those heat lamps and although I haven't used it in decades, it's obviously just a 250 watt flood light with a filter, like the kind you used to find in bathrooms to dry you off many many moons ago. They used to sell similar style UV lamps too, but I wouldn't use one for love or money either - eekk!

 

So has IR-A exposure helped in any way?

[Nate-2004]

Not that I can tell, just from photographic comparisons. I agree the LED might be better, but I tried that too and didn't see much of a change. I'm moving on to GHK-Cu (if Hairevo *ever* actually ships it) which I'm sure will also do little to rejuvenate. Then again I have great skin as it is, I think my biggest issue is the grey in my facial hair. Can't cover that up like you can with head hair.

Edited by Nate-2004, 30 November 2017 - 03:08 PM.

[Oakman]

Yea sucks that - the older you get, the more of your body hair turns grey/white, 1st the head, then the beard, then the eyebrows :(