670nm deep red led helps eyesight

[jon_slider]

with all due respect, when a scientist does a study on a specific wavelength, such as 670nm, that does not mean other wavelengths dont work. It just means that they tested that one.

I think people get too caught up on trying to get the exact same LED and exact same dosage protocols…

different LEDs have different brightness levels, so distance protocols will differ.

I suggest doing some personal testing, with dim light, and reasonable caution. This stuff is not going to hurt you, if you behave in a reasonably cautious manner. So dont turn the red up to super bright and hold it directly against your eyeball

that said… here are some alternative facts:

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11061-y

“Several parameters showed that green light was even more potent to stimulate proliferation and migration of endothelial cells than clinically well-established red light therapy … Blue light is also most efficient to release NO which is bound to mitochondrial and other heme proteins5, 13. NO has been shown to play a key role in wound healing.”

—

Effects of low-power light therapy on wound healing: LASER x LED

“the use of low power light in animals and humans involves almost exclusively light in red and near infrared wavelengths. Historical issues, mainly cost and availability may be related to this fact.”

---

I quote those to point out that not just one single frequency has biological effects.

and fwiw, I think we are talking about several different factors, here are some of them

1. mitochondria are energized by light. there are mitochondria in all our cells, not just the retina.

2. red light is specifically not rhodopsin bleaching… this speaks to dark adapted low light sensitivity

3. nerve ganglia transmit information from rods and cones to the brain. Light movement tends to promote more efficient signalling… kind of like exercise promotes increased muscle ability

4. Stimulate cell proliferation

5. Stimulate NO release.

so… given that 670nm red has biological effects of at least 5 different types

which of those three is red specific?
imo only #2

and can green light produce similar biological effects?
imo yes for all except #2

I welcome more information, these are just my opinions

I do have a red light, and am enjoying using it. I have a 0.2 lumen mode that I use cautiously on my eyes, for brief periods. I do not find the effect enjoyable, inasmuch as when I open my eyes, I find myself a bit oversensitized to daylight…

I have used the red light on a skin scrape that was red and painful. It seemed to reduce the pain, and the redness was reduced the day after, and the scab dried and came off, sooner than it might have without the photon bombardment.

I have ordered green, because Im curious to use it on cuts and bruises.

Im totally skeptical about significant vision enhancement … be it low light sensitivity, or increased color differentiation. Effects that can be measured with instruments, may not be perceivable in day to day vision, by an individual. However, I see this as an interesting educational challenge, and Im enjoying learning more about Low Level Light Therapy, including, not limited, to Red.

I dont expect my cataracts to reverse, nor do I expect my bifocal prescription to change for the better

and I dont expect to recover vision that I have lost due to Central Serous Retinopathy.

I do otoh, find the the red light helps with sore muscles, inflammation reduction, and hence healing rate. I am curious to test for myself if green has similar effects. I suspect it will.

Because mitochondria respond to light… think of them as little photoreceptors inside our cells, that when given an energy source, in the form of light, will transmit energy that fuels our life processes…

and btw
mitochondria are an ancient symbiotic bacteria that has co evolved inside our cells… not unlike a virus, but in this case, life promoting.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-origin-of-mitochondria-and-chloroplasts-14747702/

“Mitochondria … evolved from engulfed bacteria that once lived as independent organisms…. then formed an endosymbiotic relationship with the host”

[jacekk]

What a fascinating analysis Jon Slider! Thank you.

As a layperson with zero medical or scientific knowledge I can only try to emulate what exerts have already researched.
My desire is not to improve my vision in any way but as a 66 year old film colourist I am concerned in retaining my colour perception after reading this article Declining eyesight improved by looking at deep red light | ScienceDaily

Quote from the article:

“Your retinal sensitivity and your colour vision are both gradually undermined, and with an ageing population, this is an increasingly important issue.

“To try to stem or reverse this decline, we sought to reboot the retina’s ageing cells with short bursts of longwave light.”

In humans around 40 years-old, cells in the eye’s retina begin to age, and the pace of this ageing is caused, in part, when the cell’s mitochondria, whose role is to produce energy (known as ATP) and boost cell function, also start to decline.

Mitochondrial density is greatest in the retina’s photoreceptor cells, which have high energy demands. As a result, the retina ages faster than other organs, with a 70% ATP reduction over life, causing a significant decline in photoreceptor function as they lack the energy to perform their normal role.

So without any knowledge and time to research, I am hoping to at least start from the same place where other expert researchers already found success.

Also have read several article implying that because eyes are extremely photosensitive, damage could occur from too much exposure. Is Red Led Light Therapy Bad for Your Eyes? Let's Find Out – PlatinumLED Therapy Lights(UVA%20and%20UVB,occur%20from%20too%20much%20exposure.

Thank you for your input and expert knowledge.

Jacek

[jon_slider]

I share your interest in preserving vision, and hope you find the dosing and other info you seek, to be comfortable using light therapy.

Since the LUMEN output of my red light is different from the output of the red light in other studies, and I dont have a sofirn C01S
the Distance to obtain a similar brightness on target, LUX, will be different for each output level.

I will be interested in learning how to do the distance calculation that equalizes for variations in lumen output of different flashlights, if you manage to sort it out.

I hope you enjoy whatever red light you choose… I recommend the experience… its fun, at my age… lol

[jacekk]

Thank you. I did already buy the Sofirn C01R Red light and will definitely post any scientific empirical information which may be of interest to others.

[hank]

Did the researchers get sent a Sofirn red light yet by anyone?

[jon_slider]

I thought you had already done that, no?

[kennybobby]

Unfortunately CREE doesn’t indicate their measuring distance to determine the radiant flux for the XP-E2 photo red emitter used in the C01R flashlight. But as a worst case, their minimum was on the order of 450mW @ 350mA current.
They have wavelength bin P5 that ranges from 665 to 670nm, if someone wanted to push toward a custom emitter for mitochondria stimulation.

The flashlight specs indicate 3 modes with 0.5, 9, and 36 lumens, but no current values for the modes.

the fine print:
ref: https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXPE2.pdf

Vision Advisory
WARNING: Do not look at an exposed lamp in operation. Eye injury can result. For more information about LEDs and eye safety, please refer to the LED Eye Safety application note.

[edit: it seems that it should be possible to calculate the irradiance (mW/cm^2) that is hitting the pupils if the flashlight was mounted at a fixed distance from the face—but i think the measurement distance of the 450mW in the datasheet must be known first. Anybody have a clue on that?]

[Barkuti]

Found this 940nm SK98 for sale @ FastTech. As a zoomie it should project around ⅔ of its rated emitter output out the front in flood, in an ultra evenly distributed blanket of near infrared light. I wonder about the type and quality of the driver it employs, as the ∅20mm one inside the more standard XM-L2 version is a quite poor unregulated MOSFET (9435 p-FET) high / low / strobe unit.

Is this flashlight probably meant to be used with night vision devices?

[jacekk]

@g.jeffery@ucl.ac.uk

Wavelengths are 670nm- approx 1000nm. energies were around 40mW/cm2 to start with. This was filtered, but we now have as good effects with much much lower power output. There is no real dose response curve - the effect is more switch like. 3 mins as good as 15. >1h and the effects are reduced.

The process is often termed photobiomodulation. There is a lot of literature out there, look for names like Mitrofanis J. Kern T., Eells J., etc,…

Hi Glen and thank you for posting here and offering to respond if possible: I read through all your literature on PubMed and find your results wonderfully interesting and exciting for the future of medicine.

@g.jeffery@ucl.ac.uk

Especially that mornings are the vbest time for mitochondrial stimulation.
he life of mitochondria reveals shifting workloads
ATP levels by contrast are >40% greater in the morning and lowest at night when glycolysis peaks. Complex activity modulation was at the protein level with no evidence for differential transcription over the day. Timing differences between increased ATP production and peaks of complex activity may result from more efficient ATP production early in the day leaving complex activity with spare capacity. Optical stimulation of mitochondria is only possible in the mornings when there is such spare capacity.

If 10am is the time to do it for mice then it is OK for me too!

One question in regard to photobiomodulation . All your references to light power use figures like (40 mW/cm2, 36 J in total)

I am a layperson with zero biological or scientific knowledge: what does this figure represent?
I bought a ‘Sofirn C01R Red light Keychain Flashlight Cree XPE2 660nm Deep RED LED bulb’ which has varying beam strength on different settings and can be quite intense on the highest setting. I can measure it in lumens with a light meter but how do lumens convert to the settings you use? Is there a conversion formula?

Oh and can one close the eyelid or is it best to maintain the colour and keep the eye open?

As a 66 year old film colourist with excellent colour perception I am only interested in maintaining my career as I age further.
I don’t want to blind myself in the process!

Thank again.

Jacek

[hank]

Hank

Did the researchers get sent a Sofirn red light yet by anyone?

jon_slider

I thought you had already done that, no?

No.
I have not sent the researchers a light, I’m wondering if anyone did. I’d gladly chip in to encourage them to try the Sofirn red emitter.

[kennybobby]

This has gotten me curious about building a simple measurement device for the radiant power. There used to be some ics TSL 235, 237… from Texas Optical to convert light intensity to either a frequency pulse or in some cases an amplified analog voltage proportional to the irradiance (mW/cm^2).

i ordered a photo red flashlight just to do this test and maybe the mitochondria testing also, but hopefully i can get some data about the C01R radiant power vs distance.

[jon_slider]

@Hikelite

@jon_slider

So I modded this Titanium beauty, and Im shining it at my stubbed toe…

This looks clearly like a 620nm, because of the orange-yellow center
Deeper reds like 660nm have more magenta there than orange-yellow.
That is a bit of a rule of thumb do differentiate between reds with the eyes.

you have very well trained eyes, and are absolutely correct

I received a comparison photo
thanks to Andy Zhu

[Barkuti]

Everyone to his own. Quoting again to Glen Jeffery:

@g.jeffery@@ucl.ac.uk

Wavelengths are 670nm- approx 1000nm. energies were around 40mW/cm2 to start with. This was filtered, but we now have as good effects with much much lower power output. There is no real dose response curve - the effect is more switch like. 3 mins as good as 15. >1h and the effects are reduced.

The process is often termed photobiomodulation. There is a lot of literature out there, look for names like Mitrofanis J. Kern T., Eells J., etc,...

Far red emitters are ≈730nm. This is still visible and better suited for this photo-stimulation thing. Or are you waiting for someone else to come here and say this?

This stuff sort of draws my attention, but at this point I have plenty of other things to mess with, though.

@jon_slider

…

I received a comparison photo

thanks to Andy Zhu

Thanks for this comparative photograph.

[jon_slider]

@Barkuti

730nm. This is still visible and better suited for this photo-stimulation thing.

better how?

Ive read that green also works
do you disagre?

if different studies get results from different spectra
that suggests the active ingredient is energy, not color

I think what color does, is change depth of penetration

[hank]

g.jeffery@@ucl.ac.uk wrote:

Wavelengths are 670nm- approx 1000nm. energies were around 40mW/cm2 to start with. This was filtered, but we now have as good effects with much much lower power output. There is no real dose response curve - the effect is more switch like. 3 mins as good as 15. >1h and the effects are reduced.

Are you still here?

Got any data on how long the effect persists? Is regular redosing with light necessary to maintain the effect?

[jon_slider]

@hank

Is regular redosing with light necessary to maintain the effect?

imo yes

the link in post #1 says redosing was done daily:

“for three minutes a day for two weeks.”

I found it suprising that the benefit is only for people over 40.

[g.jeffery (g.jeffery@ucl.ac.uk)]

Effects from 2-3 mins lasts about 3 days. No point in saying this to some people as they forget which day they used it - so say daily as there is no harm in it.

Green does not work - mitochondria do not absorb green light. A company has incorporated green into one device to make it more complex and protect their patent.

Longer wavelength penetrate deeper in tissue - so labs doing this in brain use 810nm or longer, which is beyond the human visual range.

No point in trying to work out wavelengths with your eye. You need a spectrometer

Best
Glen

[jon_slider]

@g.jeffery@ucl.ac.uk

Green does not work - mitochondria do not absorb green light.

thank you

I suppose green light speeds wound healing by a different mechanism than energizing mitochondria

Green light emitting diodes accelerate wound healing

“(LEDs) … have photobiostimulative effects on tissue repair.

…

we investigated the effects of … green (518 nm) LEDs on wound healing.
…
wound sizes in the skin of … mice were significantly decreased on day 7 following exposure to green LEDs

…

In conclusion, we demonstrate that green LEDs promote wound healing”

[g.jeffery (g.jeffery@ucl.ac.uk)]

I’m unsure of this. Not everything published is correct, particularly if there is a commercial interest behind it. But as you say it could be simply by another mechanism e.g. all light carries energy which can improve circulation, which in turn will likely improve wound healing

[hank]

How big is the effect in practice? I understand statistical significance, but I realize that could mean an effect that’s reliably detectable but trivial for actual daily life purposes.