Hozer2k - LED Journal

[hozer2k]

I was originally going to start LED some time after IPL, but I got impulsive and decided to try it right away because of all the positive reports here. I use the acne lamp, single head, red...about 3" from my face for 15-30 min. I did this on one side of my face to get an objective view. On the third day I noticed this side was definately more red than the other. So I have decided to discontinue its use for the time being ( a month or two ) on the face. However in the meantime I will use it on one side of my neck and chest.

************************************************** *************
Now for my beef about others using LED systems. While I feel they are well intentioned, I am going to stick to what I know as a researcher. I feel it is very important to do just one side to gage the progress.

Rosacea can change from day to day, hour to hour by:
season
heat
humidy
stress
diet
the way you view yourself over time ( you forget what you really looked like 6 months ago)
medications
IPL
placebo
healing of time
etc, etc, etc

This being said, I will not continue to believe anyone who hasnt tried one side of the face for at least some period of time. This is not to say anyone is lying, absolutetly not, it is just that because of the enormous amount of variables I cannot really believe it. Its such an easy thing to do and a great way for each person to help isolate where its working for you or not....whether you want to spend money on equipment and dedicate the time doing this.

Doing one side of the face is a great indicator of efficacy. I have done this with topicals and been able to gage them very well. If I had not done this with current experience, I may have just chalked it to a post IPL flush, and never known. I got impulsive, but now it is time to be methodical.

That is it, I will continue to update this thread as updates come in.

[Steve95301]

Very level-headed analysis, I especially like the mention of both shifting baselines and stress.

I'm wondering: are you going to document your trials with photographs? Not for proving anything to members of this forum, but for your own use... since, like you said, it's hard to remember what you looked like six months ago?

Also: the results of your experience so soon after IPL would seem to confirm my own thoughts--and those of science in general--that red light helps wounds to heal, which includes angiogenesis. What was your feeling at the time, as to the cause of the redness? Was there any heat involved from the unit? Anything besides increased cellular activity that would account for it?

Thank you, and I look forward to your updates.

[hozer2k]

Really I have no idea why the increased redness is there, I would consider the heat to be insignificant. Other members seem to think it could help after IPL, but of course everyone is different. It seems to have mostly subsided now...but its not worth the risk to me.

Pictures, well probably not. The reason is that it is too easy for me to get carried away and obsess. I really dont want to go down that road, I want this to be as minimally intrusive to my real life as possible. I feel the two sides should show me whether or not it is going in the right or wrong direction. If at a point, I see it I am getting positive results I will be more diligent. But its too early for that as I am just looking to see how I generally will react.

Dont expect anything right away though. I need some downtime from IPL and it will take time. I am also hoping others create a journal and try to be scientific about their approaches.

[Steve95301]

Cool, that's understandable. If you're only doing one side, any results will be noticeable.

(I just got an IPL txt also, and am doing a little experimenting of my own, by going on accutane immediately afterward.)

Anyway, I won't hog your thread, except to say it looks like you're going about this the right way.

[Twickle Purple]

I was originally going to start LED some time after IPL, but I got impulsive and decided to try it right away because of all the positive reports here. I use the acne lamp, single head, red...about 3" from my face for 15-30 min. I did this on one side of my face to get an objective view. On the third day I noticed this side was definately more red than the other. So I have decided to discontinue its use for the time being ( a month or two ) on the face. However in the meantime I will use it on one side of my neck and chest.

************************************************** *************
Now for my beef about others using LED systems. While I feel they are well intentioned, I am going to stick to what I know as a researcher. I feel it is very important to do just one side to gage the progress.

This being said, I will not continue to believe anyone who hasnt tried one side of the face for at least some period of time. This is not to say anyone is lying, absolutetly not, it is just that because of the enormous amount of variables I cannot really believe it. Its such an easy thing to do and a great way for each person to help isolate where its working for you or not....whether you want to spend money on equipment and dedicate the time doing this.

Doing one side of the face is a great indicator of efficacy. I have done this with topicals and been able to gage them very well. If I had not done this with current experience, I may have just chalked it to a post IPL flush, and never known. I got impulsive, but now it is time to be methodical.

That is it, I will continue to update this thread as updates come in.

Perhaps you would clarify, do you mean to say that you're opinion on what it is occuring is valid while others are not, because you are doing one cheek? Doing one side is a great indicator of efficacy in topicals are you suggesting that this is the same?

[orangehorizon]

Suggesting to do only one side is the smartest post I've seen so far on red light. It will really separate reality from imaginary effects.

[Twickle Purple]

Suggesting to do only one side is the smartest post I've seen so far on red light. It will really separate reality from imaginary effects.

Thank you orangehorizon. Your gracious sentiments speak to the heart of a support forum.

Hozer2k what's your subtype? I have permanent redness and will be testing red light on my whole face and documenting with photos. I have redness on the nose and down either side of the cheeks.

To try it on one side is to assume that they are not interdependant. This may be a good way of testing topicals on pustules or for testing possible negative effects but for a fair test you need try it on the whole face and document with photos.

[redhotoz]

Hi Hozer2k

From what I read, before starting to use my array, is that it is best to begin at a longer distance away from your face and for a short period of time. Then, slowly bring it closer and for longer periods of time. Perhaps the 3 days of using your lamp at 3 inches away from your face with 15-30 minutes exposure was too much to start out with.

Whilst I understand the theory behind only doing only one side of the face for comparison, I do not believe that makes anyone else’s reports less credible because they treat the whole face.

Also, I don’t see how using your lamp on one side of your neck and chest is going to prove anything for use on Rosacea skin. If you want a true comparison, then I believe it should be used on your face, where the Rosacea symptoms present. Your up-date will not be comparing apples with apples.

You are right that we do forget what we looked like 6 months ago. I don’t see how taking one photo, say each month, is obsessive. How will your up-date be a true record of what has happened if you are relying solely on your memory, which as you have pointed out, can fade over time.

I’m all for folks creating a journal of their experiences but in this case, a journal of use on the neck and chest area is simply not going to give a true representation, comparing apples with apples, if you were to use your lamp on your Rosacea skin.

Jen

[hozer2k]

Jen, so people cannot have rosacea symptoms on their neck and chest? Perhaps I am wrong then, but I do have redness in this area. I know of people who have successfully treated this with IPL as well.

In any case, it is only a starting point (and I stated this). I will move on to the face in due time, but again I am going to be methodical and not haphazard. I want time to recover from IPL first.

The assumption is that the left and right are independent. Is this true? I cannot say with certainty, but I have more faith in this than with all the other myriad of variables I pointed out. Even pictures can lie as for the above reasons I pointed out.

I am thankful to all of those who have been doing LLLT! I am NOT saying anything bad about that :) What I am saying is simply that we do have a way of better testing the efficacy (in my opinion). Honestly, I dont think I could even believe myself if I had nothing to compare it to...its too easy to get things confused with all the other variables.

[redhotoz]

Well, I don't have any symptoms on my neck or chest although I have read posts where people have claimed to have R in these areas. Being that Rosacea is considered to be a facial disorder, I'm not convinced myself but then of course I am only giving my opinion here from what I have read.

Methodical is good but I might suggest slowly is the also another to add to that. I don't believe that I have been haphazard in my approach.

I don't know whether the left and right sides of the face are independent or not. Maybe 'Guest' can shed some light on this? LOL Sorry, no pun intended.

Jen

[Twickle Purple]

Now for my beef about others using LED systems. While I feel they are well intentioned, I am going to stick to what I know as a researcher.

This being said, I will not continue to believe anyone who hasn’t tried one side of the face for at least some period of time. This is not to say anyone is lying, absolutely not, it is just that because of the enormous amount of variables I cannot really believe it.

Good luck with your ‘trials’ Hozer2k. Just to be clear, you have pointed out that you must experience what others have posted in order to believe. That’s excellent. Here’s the unit I use beside the one that you use. As a researcher, I am sure you can appreciate the relevance of this illustration. Since you mention it, what kind of research do you do?

http://www.Anniroc.com/TP/Devices/Acnelamp-1red.jpg


It will really separate reality from imaginary effects.

It’s regrettable and destructive what can be implied with such a statement. While I am sure you meant no disrespect, it behooves me to address this so that others are not dissuaded by the results that I share, and will take into account their source.

My posts lightly touch on my challenges with health and well being. It has been life-long and, at times, limiting. I spent the greater part of my childhood in hospital or convalescing, as well as was the subject of study at a very well respected Nova Scotia teaching hospital in my teens. In spite of everything I am a self made and successful individual. I have a strong mind and a good will. Both have been a lifesaver, but I have not been able to use either to overcome my annoying health issues. I have a lifetime of medication, a lot of it, and I don’t take it for anything imaginary, nor could I image wellness to the point of not needing it. The issues are of pathology not psychology. I suspect my doctor’s share this view, see below.

http://www.Anniroc.com/TP/Devices/meds.jpg


We are all individuals and have unique experiences and personalities. It is disconcerting what some posts insinuate. There are many here that use RLT and I urge anyone reading this to search and read as much as you can on the subject, and all it’s applications, before forming an opinion.

I hope this post will serve in a positive way for anyone reading it.

Respectfully,
Twickle Purple

[GJ]

. Perhaps the 3 days of using your lamp at 3 inches away from your face with 15-30 minutes exposure was too much to start out with.


This was the mistake I (knowingly) made first time up.
Entirely different this time around with a more sensible approach.

I guess the Acnelamp is designed to be used while seated. I imagine that most users would be happier lying down through treatments: certainly an issue prospective array purchasers should consider.

[hozer2k]

http://www.rosacea.org/patients/whatis.php

"In some cases, rosacea may also occur on the neck, chest, scalp or ears."

I am no expert, but I have read many posts referring to these areas. If the point of the LED is to examine how effective it is at treating redness, I think this is an acceptable start. Lets not forget LED is not even a treatment indicated for rosacea in the first place.

As far as distance goes, I followed the directions according to acnelamp. If you are using a different unit that has different intensity, different number of LED's, etc...then a 6" distance (or whatever) may mean something. To me, if you are not using this particular unit, it doesnt mean a whole lot to say 6" is good for it or that is may be too much.

In any case, this is EXACTLY why one should do this type of comparison. I think that really is the point anyway.

Someone asked my background...I am an engineer and spent 13 yrs in school, much of it research. I am not a MD, but I do have an idea how to create an effective test approach.

Thats all...I think I will just do my own thing. Everyone is entitled to their approach, I am just trying to take some of the guess work out of it. Everyone here has the same goal. Everyone should just realize that good intentions do not equate to good science.

[Twickle Purple]

Then I applaud your good intentions. None of us are qualified to run trials on this, and if we were, we would of course ensure that we would compare apples to apples. So that when we voice opinion countering anothers we can speak from the same point of origin. As someone who has an appreciation for research I am sure you would agree. You have started this from a position that denigrates those opinions that came before you.

If it works for you, great, if it doesn't so what? That doesn't mean it doesn't work for me or all the others that make the same claim. There is no universal treatment for rosacea that works for all of us. Is there?

My posts on the subject are in the spirit of sharing, alot of which I have done with you. Use it or don't just don't adopt a superior tone about it.

I urge anyone reading this to search and read as much as you can on the subject of LLLT/RLT, and all it’s applications.

[hozer2k]

Not really sure what that even means TP. I wish to thank you and all others for the help and courage to try this, its great. I am not trying to take a superior tone...that is only your perception.

Anyway, I REALLY want to keep this on track!

As stated in my very first post, I feel the best way to isolate the efficacy is to do just one side. This is because of all the other variables that exist when dealing with rosacea. In any experiment you want to isolate it to the variable of interest as best you can. If anyone can think of a better way or way to enhace this please let me know, I would really appreciate it.

Sooo...lets keep this on track! I am only interested in the best way to determine how well its working and to track and report this. I want to minimize any other influencing factors. I do NOT, I repeat, I do NOT want to argue with other members anymore about non benefical aspects.

[Twickle Purple]

Excellent, I look forward to reading your posts. As long as they do not position themselves as somehow better than any others on this subject or question the believability of another's experience. Your experiences are your own and completely valid in that light.

Wishing you good luck and great skin!
Twickle Purple

[GJ]

As far as distance goes, I followed the directions according to acnelamp .

Clearly the device is aimed at acne sufferers. Probably inappropriate for a rosacean to follow the manufacturer's directions. Thus the advised (initial) circumspection.

[Twickle Purple]

As far as distance goes, I followed the directions according to acnelamp .

Clearly the device is aimed at acne sufferers. Probably inappropriate for a rosacean to follow the manufacturer's directions. Thus the advised (initial) circumspection.

This is correct. The fellow I worked with for the Dimalux purchase, Thierry, was the VP of Acnelamp and he was perfectly clear that they are in no position to offer input or instruction on any of their devices application for treatment for anything other than acne. The area of Rosacea and eczema treatment is new and, as we see by the research available, relatively uncharted. After our first chat he told me about using the 660/880 combo for my eczema, based on a conversation he had with another customer who is a doctor. He offered that I swap my 660 panels for no charge but I opted to purchased the combo panels for my eczema skin as well as the full 660 panels for my rosacea.

So, the majority of first hand information for Rosacea application will come from our fellow forum members.

[hozer2k]

Clearly the device is aimed at acne sufferers. Probably inappropriate for a rosacean to follow the manufacturer's directions. Thus the advised (initial) circumspection.

For one, we dont even know for sure if LED does harm, does nothing, or helps rosacea yet...much less the appropriate proximity.

How do you know this? I dont think you do. I dont know if anyone really knows what is the right and wrong proximity since there are no studies and hence the reason we are experimenting ourselves. I think it is foolish though to say it is probably inappropriate just because it works for another treatment. Mnfr reccomends 2-6". If thats not right then would you start at 8" (seems pretty far). Would you start at 1" (seems close). The mnfr range actually seems pretty like a good starting point. It is possible 8 or 12" is the right distance, but how can you discount the 2-6" range?

Ultimately what you are saying is that the correct distance is probably 0-2" or 6-infinity" because 2-6" works for acne. Quite simply, its just not logical for you to make the above statement and there is no basis for it.

This is correct.

Well, no...not really. See above.

The fellow I worked with for the Dimalux purchase, Thierry, was the VP of Acnelamp and he was perfectly clear that they are in no position to offer input or instruction on any of their devices application for treatment for anything other than acne. The area of Rosacea and eczema treatment is new and, as we see by the research available, relatively uncharted. After our first chat he told me about using the 660/880 combo for my eczema, based on a conversation he had with another customer who is a doctor. He offered that I swap my 660 panels for no charge but I opted to purchased the combo panels for my eczema skin as well as the full 660 panels for my rosacea.

Not sure what this really has to offer to the conversation. Since there are no studies they probably know as much, or less, than we do about its affect on rosacea (I dont think that is news to anybody). If they said they did, then would you believe them? All this says is they dont know what the effect will be and what the correct usage is. Certainly they cant say that what works for acne works for rosacea...and they cant they opposite either, noone can.

I created another thread to help address some of the shortcomings we have right now about distance:

http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?p=29443#29443

[Twickle Purple]

Not sure what this really has to offer to the conversation.

It appears nothing can be added to this conversation.

[hozer2k]

Not true, I think this board has people who can help with this. If this is important (and some members are questioning this aspect of my initial trials), then we should do the best to identify as much about it as we can. I believe Iowadavid actually took some measurements as well.

THe point is that the manufacturer of an LED device will not have answers and I dont think anyone expects them to (which is why its not very relevant).

[Twickle Purple]

This particular unit was promoted to me as a device used by medical professionals. So yes, it is expected that information and supportive literature be provided. Detailed information is included with the other units that are geared to that market. Of course they cost 2 - 3 x as much. There is one place in Canada that I looked into and it even gives you 2 days of training with their system.

Perhaps you could PM IowaDavid? He was the 'pioneering' RLT forum member.

[hozer2k]

Agreed, they should have provided documentation....but for acne. Did you really expect answers for rosacea though? Does the ominilux professional unit even have anything concerning rosacea?

[redhotoz]

Agreed, they should have provided documentation....but for acne. Did you really expect answers for rosacea though? Does the ominilux professional unit even have anything concerning rosacea?

Hi Hozer2k

We have covered this many times before. That is, what some of us here are trying with low level red light therapy, has not been through a clinical trial. We are all giving reports on what we personally find. Let's all support eachother through our findings, huh!

There has been way too much 'spark' happening again whilst trying to discuss this possible treatment modality. Let's work together please.

Jen

[redhotoz]

Not really sure what that even means TP. I wish to thank you and all others for the help and courage to try this, its great. I am not trying to take a superior tone...that is only your perception.

Anyway, I REALLY want to keep this on track!

Yes, let's keep this on track but I should make mention that your opening post pretty much trashed what anyone had previously written about this topic: "I will not continue to believe anyone who hasnt tried one side of the face for at least some period of time." Whilst I do understand what you were saying, I found this to be a real kick in the teeth and personally upsetting. I only post my honest evaluations. I try my best to ensure that my posts are kind and helpful, giving my best evaluation of the topic at hand. I know I'm not perfect and started out in this Forum with gusto but I do try my best.

Anyway, I felt the need to get this off my chest and I do hope that we can discuss this like adults.

There are many personalities here on this Forum and many times we clash. It would be nice to know that we could all be considerate with what we post...that is...that we think about how the person receiving the post would/could/might react. Mis-interpretation is a major issue with on-line support groups like this and I do hope we can try to be supportive of eachother. I have spoken with quite a few people from this Forum on the phone and that has been great...to put a voice to a person. It makes it more friendly and personal.

Yup, so let's do the support thing. That's what we're here for in our quest..."Where Rosacea-Free Can Be Reality".

Jen

[Coyne]

Maybe 'Guest' can shed some light on this? LOL Sorry, no pun intended.
Jen

'Guest' was me. I thought I was logged in. I didn't realise you could post as 'Guest'.

I just wanted to make clear what the assumptions were in Hozer's hypothesis. I can only speak from my own experience but I would believe that the two sides would in fact be interdependent. That's just my own theory which I can't be concrete about.

If anyone has treated one side of the face successfully or has ever had symptoms on one side only PM me.

If you could hozer2k would you note the effects on the untreated side of the face and compare the two. Thanks.

Good luck with your tests.

James

[hozer2k]

Fair enough Jen.

For the record, I was not trying to upset you or others. I personally respond to science. People of this background appreciate directness and solid ideas, regardless of how it may hurt ones feelings. Often times this is what is necessary to solve the problem. Others may see this approach is being "cold". This is fair since I am sure not everyone has the same take on it. I will try to be more delicate, but if you really read my posts they are not inflammatory (most of the time). They are more direct, to the point, and show that I really want to solve problems...but that I am not really trying to make pals. I dont attack people personally, but I address the issue. If I point our their error or shortcoming it may be perceived as an attack by some, but really its just addressing the real matter. I have been wrong and have admitted this before (even recently).

This quote you referenced:
"I will not continue to believe anyone who hasnt tried one side of the face for at least some period of time."
Actually, I will stand by that. Taking this out of context is really not fair because I mentioned the reason is not because you are lying, but that you can easily be mistaken (and pointed out the reasons why). This really isnt inflammatory towards anyone, nor should it be a slap in the face. This is taking a step back from the hype and trying to say....ok, lets slow down, lets get to the root of the matter. I want something more concrete...and here is how I think we can get there. The scientific person might say...yes he is on to something, lets not leave things to chance. Lets try to isolate this and really see if its working. We can do this, we can see if this really works. I think people may be letting emotion get in the way, and that can stunt our potential to better understand this.

If you read the first few posts, other members do agree that we need more basis for our findings. If you really want LED treatments to be better known and show they will be of benefit you (and I mean everyone here) would recognize this. It is great to hear of all the good stories, but we really need more than stories.

Again, and I have said this to TP, I applaud you guys for the courage to try this treatment! I really hope it works for more and more people (of course myself too). I know you all have spent a lot of time and money on this and I give credit where credit is due.

For the time being I will take some time from the forum and continue my approach. I think my approach is too much in conflict with others to be of positive influence at this point. Whether or not I think I am right is of less importance than making sure things stay positive. Good luck guys.

[hozer2k]

I posted *my* experience in a thread *I* created. I gave *my* opinions and I actually *supported* them with real reasons. I encouraged improvement of current approaches. Everything I said had basis and foundation. I did not go into anyone elses threads and mess it up for them. My posts in OTHERS threads concerning LED therapy is nothing but supportive.

I feel there are some very emotional people here that get insulted easily. They would rather concentrate on their feelings than on the underlying message and goal...to me this is selfish.

It would really be nice if I could just record my progress with LED in an objective, scientific manner. If you dont like this thread then make your own journal and do it how you want to. If you said yours was right and mine was all wrong, I would read the reasons and decide if it was valid. If I didnt believe it, I sure as heck wouldnt go and mess what your doing up cause I was offended though.

[hozer2k]

OK, now that being said...I have no more energy to waste on with those matters.

My plan is to update once a week or so on the current treatment.

I am doing half of my neck and half of my forehead at about 5" for 15 min a day. I am on the third day now. I have not observed any difference so far. Nothing negative, nothing positive to report yet.

[Twickle Purple]

I feel there are some very emotional people here that get insulted easily. They would rather concentrate on their feelings than on the underlying message and goal...to me this is selfish. .

If you continue to make comments like that you can always expect one in return. That much is obvious.

If your goal is to post your experience, then please do so. If you could refrain from posting your opinions of anothers results, or methodology, you would not have a problem. You never would have. This appears to have been THE ONLY objection. It's pretty clear. I'm not sure how people taking offense at this is being selfish. It is offensive how you comment about others. Stick to your experience and you won't have a problem.

I have no patience for rudeness. Hubris is what I see in your posts.

[Twickle Purple]

This site is geared to veterinarians, as they have been using this since the early 70s. Anyone interested in LLLT should read articles regarding this usage, this is akin to animals 'trials' and has the most information. It also references human studies.

http://www.emersonww.com/LaserFAQs.htm

An excerpt:

Q. Are there any negative effects from LLLT?

A. In all the years that low level lasers have been tested in research and clinical applications, no adverse side effects or negative impacts have been reported. This is why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies lasers like the Respond Laser Therapy Systems as “Non-Significant Risk” devices, requiring a minimum of safety precautions. The only precaution is that which discourages direct viewing of the laser beam. Care should be exercised not to stare into the laser beam or to point it at the eyes, and the use of safety glasses is recommended.

Q. How long have low level lasers been used for therapy?

A. Low level lasers have been used by doctors in hospitals and clinics in Europe on both humans and animals since the early 1970’s. In fact, the first studies reporting positive effects of laser on wound healing in rats were reported by the Hungarian researcher Andre Mester as early as 1968. In the United States, therapeutic lasers have been used by veterinarians since the late 1970’s. Just recently the U.S. FDA has given marketing approval to laser therapy devices for human use, beginning the trend to widespread use of LLLT in the United States.

Q. In simple terms, what does LLLT do?

A. A huge amount of research data has been collected on the effects of laser therapy (over 2000 double-blind studies) both in laboratory and clinical settings. The following excerpts demonstrate some of the most significant results: (Check the bibliography if you would like to do some in-depth reading.)

1. Wound healing is significantly improved by low level laser therapy, even non-healing wounds, thought to be due to the increased level of collagen brought about by laser treatment. Collagen, the chief constituent of connective tissue, is recognized as the most important ingredient in wound healing. See Dr. Andre F. Mester and Dr. Adam Mester, LLLT and Wound Healing, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 1989.

2. Increases in blood flow by means of capillary and arterial widening of the lumen of blood vessels, vasodilatation. See Dr. Toshiaki Kami, Effects of Low Power Diode Lasers, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Vol. 14, No. 3, March 1985. (Dr. Kami’s work also showed that the laser light significantly increased the formation of new capillary paths in treated areas, which resulted in increased circulation.)

3. Marked improvement in re-establishment of the lymphatic system after trauma, resulting in reduction of swelling. This is due to the evacuation of dirty proteins by the regenerated lymphatic vessels. (See Dr. P.C. Lieven, The Influence of Laser on the Lymphatic Systems, Presented at the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Eight Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas 4/25-4/28, 1988)

4. Laser light stimulates release of the body’s own killing chemicals such as endorphins and enkephalins Facilitating natural, long lasting pain relief. Dr. Wolfgang Rauermeister, Director of Pain Control Center at Parkwood Hospital, Massachusetts, USA has provided the best explanation of these pain reduction capabilities:
“The laser light stimulates the release of the body’s own pain killing chemicals such as endorphins and enkephalins from the brain, adrenal glands, and other areas, thus facilitating long lasting pain relief.”

Low level laser therapy is an effective therapy, working in harmony with the body’s own healing and relieving mechanisms. There are no harmful side effects reported from laser therapy.


----------


An LED and a laser device using 660nm wavelength light will create the same response in the body. The difference is coherent and non-coherent light.

Here's a bit from this site (http://www.redlighthealing.com/facts.htm) that explains it succinctly:

Monochromatic single wavelength light can only be produced in two ways - Low Power/Cold Laser (coherent light) or with a powerful light-emitting diode, LED (non-coherent light). Although much of the low power laser research is directly applicable to the use of LED's, LED's non-coherent light is entirely safe.

Dr Tiina Karu, of the Laser Technology Centre of Russia, found in the late 80's that the non-coherent light (LED's) was found to be as effective as coherent light and without the risk associated with cold lasers.

[hozer2k]

Update: The side I am treating on the forehead appears more red than I am used to seeing and compared to the other side. I will stop from treating this side for a while (I am still recengtly post IPL). I will probably start it again in a few weeks, but am being conservative at this point.

I will continue to treat the neck, no changes so far there.

[Twickle Purple]

Sounds prudent. Good luck, I hope it works for you.

[hozer2k]

After treatment of the neck today, it was pretty red while the other side (control) was only a light pink. Things do not look promising. I was not expecting increased redness at all...I thought at the worst it would do nothing, so this is dissapointing to say the least.

Not sure if I will continue on as I am 0-3 so far. I think I may take a break for a while and try again to see if this was a fluke or it continues to demonstrate increased redness. I thought this was going to be a very long process to identify how effective it was...I really hadnt considered that the experiment would go this badly so far.

[Twickle Purple]

Does the red stay or does it pass within an hour or so?
Some sites I've come across that sell equipment state that immediately after treatment the site has redness then it passes and the improvement becomes apparent. And the results are cumulative. As I've said elsewhere, and others have posted similarly, I flush 10 minutes into the treatment but at the end of my 20 minutes it has passed and the skin is calmer then before the session. But I'm treating my whole face. If you are just getting redness and it is staying and there is no improvement then this may not be the route for you. Will you post pics?

[hozer2k]

After some down time, I started trying this again. Been doing one half of the forehead only and its been one week. No notable difference, good or bad, which is better than increased redness I witnessed earlier. I will try to update any results periodically.

[hozer2k]

Up to about 25-30 min per session. No noticable difference, good or bad.