That looks interesting but…. I find that the simple treatments work best and studies have shown having regularly raised endorphin levels works wonders on the body more than just reducing frequency and intensity of migraines. It’s just that a lot of people want a quick fix rather than long term prevention.
Fun fact being general observations on patients with frequent migraines to patients with chronic migraines have one thing in common very low endorphin levels and studies have shown that by increasing endorphin levels reduced the frequency and intensity of migraines in both groups.
How were endorphin levels increased? If by exercise then i am proof it doesn’t hold true for everyone.
For me eyestrain and migraines go hand in hand, all other things being equal using a torch with a rosy tint induces eye strain, using a torch with a slightly green tint reduces eye strain. Interestingly, using the 660nm LED in my Sofirn C01R also reduces eye strain whereas the 620nm LEDs i’ve tried before induce it though i need to do a proper test to make sure this is the LED rather than the optics.
That’s not to say LEDs cure my migraine but they can help eye strain to not be a trigger or a compounding effect once the migraine has been triggered, and everyone’s eyes are different, a friend of mine found the reverse was true when testing my torches, a rosy tint was better for her eyes than a green one.
I don’t know what you would consider exercise, but from studies it was a life style change for patients which introduced a consistent training regimen to raise endorphins for a long term fix, but they also used rTMS to induce endorphin production in the brain and collect the results.
“(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”
I never really trust studies like that since a healing factor is hard to quantify as everything heals differently. I had injured my achilles tendon last year and doctors said it would take 6 months before it would heal etc etc. A little over 3 months later I had fully recovered without issues upon checkup with the same doctor.
Now…. if they were wounding the same mice and monitoring healing rate then I would be more inclined to believe in the results of the study.
You might be missing an opportunity to learn something new.
The scientists know more than you and I do,
about their study protocols and the reasons why they are valid.
I suggest you experiment with some green light, to develop your own personal impressions. Instead of just dismissing the study as invalid, and denying yourself an opportunity to benefit from light therapy.
Well for one they made claims but didn’t indicate sample size in the study so the results can be skewed heavily, second for human subject(s) tested on they never indicated if it was just A person or was there a large enough sample size to form a proper test and control group so I see results only shown in favor of their hypothesis. Finally the paper was published in 2012 if there was any indication that the treatment would yield any significant results there would be far more people testing this and the health industry would jump on this instantly to monopolize and capitalize on its ability to generate money……
Best example would be the fitness industry with supplements…… the companies pushing a product also have “scientists” test the product and publish amazing results etc but they don’t release age range nor the sample sizes of the test subjects to yield such gains.
“Natural Testosterone boosters” would be an example the papers published show high increases of natural test in subjects BUT they neglect to indicate that the subjects are in the age range of late 30’s to 40+ which natural testosterone production declines in males after 30 so the “product” yields an increase in these individuals while true they neglect to indicate that the increases are returning to a state closer to the production of a younger male. Someone younger than 30 taking the same product would have no difference in testosterone in their system while on the product yet the “studies” and marketing would have people believe it performs like steroids but are legal.
It’s not that I “Don’t” trust studies but ones that are released vaguely and without indicating sample sizes, age groups, ethnic groups, etc I’m generally inclined to not believe in.
