• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Red, blue, and yellow laser therapy to rejuvenate mitochondria

laser light antiaging red light depression blue light

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 SimplyHuman

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 04 April 2017 - 07:33 PM


Wondering what folks here think about this.

Laser light therapy originally won a novel for treating lupus. Today it's mainly popular in Russia and they give athletes "IV laser" sessions before competing since it boosts nitric oxide levels. Of the touted benefits is rejuvenating serotonin receptors.

I personally tried one laser watch with a device that goes in the nostrils, and after one week my skin looked considerably younger and mood improved. I did experience weakened joints though (I might have went overboard with daily sessions).

I don't know if I'm allowed to mention the company's name which I purchased it from? But they're selling new watches now with several laser colors. It's very expensive though and I will be searching for a Chinese source for this.

They claim that red light rejuvenates "cytochrome C enzyme" whereas blue light "stimulates NADH dehydrogenase".

Expert opinions please? I'm very interested in trying the blue as well.
Note: the red did skyrocket my serotonin levels (I did a saliva test! And my levels were 1400 instead of the normal 400 according to the functional medicine practitioner that saw me.

#2 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,011 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 04 April 2017 - 08:53 PM

I am looking into LLLT at the moment for a number of reasons: Acne and brain improvement. Apparently LEDS are just as good and arguably better as they're cheaper and easier to DIY.



To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#3 SimplyHuman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 04 April 2017 - 08:55 PM

I am looking into LLLT at the moment for a number of reasons: Acne and brain improvement. Apparently LEDS are just as good and arguably better as they're cheaper and easier to DIY.


Sorry what does LEDS stand for?

#4 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 05 April 2017 - 12:36 AM

https://en.wikipedia...-emitting_diode

 

Actually in this context what is commonly called "laser" is more likely to be a LED.

 

A LED is much cheaper, safer and better since light is emitted at an angle (usually 30°) instead than in a parallel beam like in a laser.

 

A laser needs to be aimed exactly on a specific small spot while a LED doesn't, a laser concentrate power which isn't a good thing when talking about therapeutic NIR light, only in trans cranial treatments a laser NIR light might be better since in order to cross the skull some power is needed and those treatments are sometimes to be quite spot specific.

 

A nostril NIR light device is trans cranial but nostrils are chosen in order to avoid the skull barrier therefore power isn't an issue and a wider light beam is preferred, of course, only part of the brain can be reached by such route but it seems to be a quite interesting part indeed which can be reached only that way.

 

A nostril device is nothing else than 2 NIR LEDs up the nostrils powered by a battery with a resistor in between (or the LED will die), total cost is few cents, I just bought one such devices for about 4$ including shipping only because case, battery connector and switch are worth it and will save me the work of assembling one.

 

I plan to replace the LEDs with NIR (near infrared) 850nm since it comes with 650nm ones which seems not to be optimal (closer to the red than to the infrared).

 

NIR LED light seems very interesting for several applications, skin aging reversal being just another one.

 

Beware of spending big money on NIR LED lights because it is extremely cheap and easy to build even a quite impressive one.

 

...and there is no way by complicated technical means to do better than just a LED light of appropriate power and wavelength, you are warned, no whistles and bells to add for marketing sake here.

 

Different LED colors at the same time seems to be worst than one wavelength at a time, not clear why yet.

 

Pulsating LEDs at frequencies don't seem to perform any better than still light.

 

More power isn't necessarily better, actually too much power is detrimental and can cause damage.

 

Powerful NIR light is desirable only for irradiating wide body areas at once, if not whole body, since what matters is power to surface ratio, yet hundreds of powerful NIR LEDs cost just few dollars at most.


  • Informative x 3
  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#5 Jschmoe

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Greensboro, NC

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:30 PM

Is there a conversion factor for IR wave penetration versus the body tissue(bone vs fat, etc)?  What about W/^2 ?  Is there an optimal number? 

 

What is the best wavelength?   IR is further out than 850nm, perhaps 1200-1700 nm?

 

Thanks for your replies.
 

jschmoe


Edited by Jschmoe, 09 April 2017 - 10:30 PM.


To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#6 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 09 April 2017 - 11:02 PM

The longer the wavelength the better is deep penetration but wavelength might affects somehow the resulting effect on tissues as well, unfortunately it seems we don't know enough yet about this subject and further research is needed.

 

In other words surely enough 1200-1700nm would achieve deeper and better penetration but it seems there isn't much research at those wavelengths to support the therapeutic effects achievable.

 

At the time being it seems that nice results are achieved with around 850nm and most more recent research seems to be done at about that length, it doesn't mean is the best, of course.

 

Above about 800nm light becomes invisible to the human eye, for that reason sometimes commercial devices are of shorter wavelength since turning on a device and seeing nothing happen might be kind of disappointing to someone.

 

It seems first researches were done on shorter wavelengths (the 600nm range) while more recently the focus shifts more towards longer wavelengths (800nm plus), at least that is the impression I get browsing researches on the subject while paying attention to the publication date. 


  • Informative x 3
  • like x 1

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: laser, light, antiaging, red light, depression, blue light

9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users