• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

LED therapy: legit or bologna?

talldave

New Blood
T
Joined
Mar 17, 2004
Messages
24
I've been reading about LED therapy.... I can't decide whether this is legit or not.

My first impression was that this was nonsense, but then I read that it was being developed by NASA (it was mentioned on the NASA website) so maybe it's legit....

http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/2000/00-336.html

Something not too different was mentioned by James Randi here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/031204busted.html#7

Although this product (in addition to being incredibly overpriced) has some very dubious claims made on its behalf.

Does anyone know if there is research to back up the idea that using certain wavelengths of light (say 670 nanometers) can promote wound healing?
 
"certain wavelengths of light" (670nM is red IIRR), light is energy, long wavelengths have a good ability to penetrate living tissue (just shine a flashlight through you hand, you'll see only red light coming through). Applying such light to parts of the body heats tissues and this stimulates blood circulation, which in turn speeds up healing of wounds, especially diabetic ulcers, which are due to poor circulation.

So applying heat in form of red to infra-red light is beneficial, yes. We have known this for .... I guess forever. For the last fifty uears or so, you have been able to buy a heat-lamp for the purpose, so the new thing is that robust and effective LEDs are taking over.

Hans
 
I saw something mentioned on a historical documentary about a man (might have been a king) who had some kind of blood disease. This being the dark to middle ages his physician suggested he surround his bed with red curtains. The documentary went on to suggest that this would have been effective at combatting the disease - I forget why exactly.

David
 
CFLarsen said:


Isn't that because of the blood??
Click to expand...
Ehhr, yes partly it is because of the blood that living tissue absorbs higher frequencies than red. What I said was that red and below penetrates deeper into tissue than higher wavelengths, I did not mention why, but sure, it is very much because living tissue is (usually) full of blood.

Hans
 
The advantage of LEDs over oldfashioned heat lamps is that the LED itself does not get hot, and it is much more compact, so you can treat the trouble spot much more intensively, wit hless risk of burns.

So it is not a bogus thing, but OTOH, there is nothing fantastic or controversial about it. It is simply an effective method of applying heat.

Hans
 
I was under the impression that the specific wavelength of red and infrared light (in some articles 680 nm, 730 nm and 880 nm) were found (How? I don't know.) to be optimal.

The proposed mechanism had something to do with a chemical called "cytochrome oxidase" which has an important function in mitochondria.

My understanding of metabolism is almost non-existent, so I don't know if I'm a good judge of the validity of of these sorts of claims.

David
 
talldave said:
I was under the impression that the specific wavelength of red and infrared light (in some articles 680 nm, 730 nm and 880 nm) were found (How? I don't know.) to be optimal.
David
Click to expand...

I find it just a bit suspicious that the "optimum" wavelengths also happen to correspond to the most commonly available LED's.

Convenience? Or just synchronicity? Or maybe somebody got a good deal on a bunch of LED's.

Regards;
Beanbag
 
Beanbag said:


I find it just a bit suspicious that the "optimum" wavelengths also happen to correspond to the most commonly available LED's.

Convenience? Or just synchronicity? Or maybe somebody got a good deal on a bunch of LED's.

Regards;
Beanbag
Click to expand...

LEDs that produce longer wavelengths are easier to make (lower band gap required) and thus cheaper. Synchronity, I guess.
 
The "infrared" that LEDs produce is not heat. If you want infrared heat, all you need is a resistive element. Those have been around for a hundred years. They are commonly called:

Light Bulbs
Heaters
Toasters
Stoves
Electric Blankets

Heat produced by Infrared LEDs is only due to inefficiency.

A $2 flashlight can produce heat, infrared, and visible light.
 
I was actually being a little coy, I apologize for the deception.

My overarching point is that, to me, being a good skeptic is about responding to bogus claims with careful analysis.

This key for issues of crediblity, but also (and more improtantly) for ones own self respect as a thinker. In addition, it's a way to acheive the ideal of "maximum effect with minimum effort".

One mistake that smart people make (in this case I'm directing the comment to some of the posters) is that they assume that they are smart in a lot of different areas, some that they have no experience with. This can be true, but people need to know their limitations.

The debacle with the physicists at the Stanford Research Institute (I forget which one of James Randi's books this covered) where they attempted to investigate psychic phenomena is a case in point.

The journal article I read "Light-emitting diode treatment reverses the effect of TTX on cytochrome oxidase in neurons" reads like a legitimate journal article.

It's published in a legitimate journal "NeuroReport"

http://www.neuroreport.com/

by people that work at an accredited school:

http://www.mcw.edu/whelan/

http://www.lcme.org/

http://www.lcme.org/directry.htm#Wisconsin

That certainly isn't to say that the product mentioned in the Randi article is legit... I'm sure it's a cheesy knockoff of the real deal. But I do think that these guys at the Medical College of Wisconsin are probably smart guys doing good work.

That's what I think anyway.


David
 
Common sense tells me that if I expose tissues or biological materials to some form of radiation (like light) that they aren't normally exposed to, then there will be some effects. These effects might be good, or they might be negative.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that IR LED's massed together would have some effect. The great thing is that they produce large amounts of radiation at a specific wavelength at a very small cost. What's needed is some good research.

Regards;
Beanbag
 
led

Hello :)

I found this after searching a bit on the internet..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031120074653.htm

(hope this is the right topic :) )

Also, I think/believe i have heard/read/seen that in Denmark (the country that I live in :) ) there is currently research being done as regard to what you're talking about.

And i think the prelimanary findings is yes, the LED actually helps on something...I think the speaker said something about the LED being 'flashed' (if that is the right word) on the flesh, and then iy was able to penetrate the flesh so that the doctors better could see the joints in/before surgery --- I think it what this...)

Unfortunately, I wasn't paying very much attention to this news, so i didn't get the whole story :( --- and of course now, I can't
backtrack and find out where i have heard/seen/read this.

But I'll keep trying :) to find the source :)

Sincerely

Karsten
:cool:
 
I think the guys at the Medical College of Wisconsin aren't doing "laser accupuncture." What do you think ?
 
No, certainly not.

The point is that criticism of bogus products should be at what specifically makes them bogus.

David
 
If you can find one double-blind LED therapy experiment that shows LEDs increase wound healing on humans, but spectrally rich light does not, then maybe that would make it non-bogus.
 
This seems like one of those things that could lead to a lot of flim flam. I found the statement that the effects are noted at, surprise, just the wavelengths of the cheap LEDs to be somewhat compelling. The recent idea of application of a blind or double-blind study is also interesting.

I haven't even looked at the claims or initial research, it could well be that an exploratory report has been latched onto by someone with a bunch of Radio Shack LEDs and wants to cash in. Remember the Mozart effect?

I'm curious what a true blind/double blind would look like, if we defined the healing effect as some measure of the closure of a skin incision. Get a large number of people, stratified sample by age/race/medical history/etc. to agree to have their skin incized or scratched, and do 2 wounds on each participant. Create a series of "treatment pads" that could be like band-aids, and make sure that everything is antiseptic. Randomize the treatment pads, and they could include all wavelengths, no light at all, heat but no light, you name it. And then examine the wounds after certain amounts of time go by.

Would be a hard study to do, maybe easier on non-humans? Certainly this is done to test, well, band-aids, antiseptics, cosmetics.

I'm not sure why I'm posting this, but maybe just to test my instinctive hypothesis-testing and get some feedback from the experienced investigators here.
 
led therapy

Hallo :)

Just a quick comment:

Studies in Denmark (and yes, its was done doubleblind and
all that) show that music (soft played music) eases people's
pain at the same level (or even better levels) that medication would do.

As for the LED therapy, i think it might work, i think that
some doctors in Denmark are using this (LED) to treat
acne problems.

But I agree, further research is necessary :)

Greetings
Karsten
 
Re: led therapy

aries said:
Studies in Denmark (and yes, its was done doubleblind and
all that) show that music (soft played music) eases people's
pain at the same level (or even better levels) that medication would do.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly blind test subjects as to whether or not they are hearing music?

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom