Have you experienced side-effects from Red Light Therapy?

[nullbit]

If you've used red light therapy (excluding infrared, I think that would be better as a separate poll), please vote on your experience.

There seems to some level of confusion surrounding the side-effects of this treatment. I hope this poll will help people (like myself) who are still undecided on red light therapy.

Thanks for voting.

[redhotoz]

Hi Nullbit

I wasn't able to vote in your poll as all of the side-effects listed are negative and I have not experienced any negative side effects from using my low level red LED array. I could not vote "no side effects" either because I have had positive results, which I have already posted about.

It's a bit of a one sided poll really. That is, there is no option to say if it has helped, only if it has harmed. Oh and don't get me wrong, I want to know if anyone has truly been harmed by low level red light therapy. I simply can not comprehend HOW one could be harmed!

Perhaps it is confusing for some, it really is a matter of reading up on it if you are interested in this option. One thing I would like to point out is that putting INFRARED to your face is not a good idea. NEAR infrared perhaps but I haven't tried it myself.

Please, please, if anyone is interested in red light therapy, do your homework. There is a great deal of info here on this Forum and many, many links that have been posted. Please do not make the mistake of putting HIGH power light to your face!!! Please take the time to understand the technology of LOW powered light. Please take the time to read what is out there.

I believe that it is exciting technology that us Roscaeans can tap into but please research your options.

Jen

Edit: I found an option for your Poll "Other".

[Twickle Purple]

:roll: You're joking right?

Hey, I'll play. My experience, mirrored by the vast majority of users are:

DEcreased flushing
DEcreased redness
DEcreased "burning" sensations
DEcreased acne symptoms
NO Vision problems :lol: Only when I take off my glasses for treatment.
Physical burns :lol: ya, right. Oh dear, I just got a paper cut from that balloon...
DEcreased Dryness
REDUCED Swelling
Thickening of tissue :lol: Only thickening of tissue is due to slanted threads like this one.
Pain :lol: In the butt.
Rash :lol: Hehe, this one's the funniest. Check out the LED threads posted here that show a before and after of an intractable rash.

Other (please post) : How on earth did you come with this stuff? Love that you just joined. Was it for this?

[nullbit]

I realise it's a bit one sided. It's seems clear the RLT has positive benefits for most people so I didn't really think it was necessary to cover that in this poll.

I made this poll for people (like myself) who would like to go ahead with RTL, but are still a little apprehensive, and would reassurance from people who have already tried that nothing bad is likely to happen.

In summary, the poll was specifically aimed at addressing the risks (if any), and not the benefits which seem to be well documented.

[Twickle Purple]

Well, since there are some RLT bashers about (either bashing RLT, or the posters who post on RLT) it is very good that you clarified your intent/goal.

[redhotoz]

Hi Nullbit

Well, sorry but your Poll is not just "a bit one sided" it is completely negative.

Anyway, I do understand wanting to know more from folks who use it for Rosacea. Perhaps you could consider that the positive benefits of RLT for Rosacea have indeed been well documented here and therefore those who are trying it do not have negative responses to offer. Of course, I can only speak for myself but I have had no negative reactions.

If you do decide to try it, please do let us know how you get on.

Jen

[Steve95301]

How dare you attempt to find out what side-effects people using RLT may have experienced.

Blasphemy.

[redhotoz]

Gawd Steve! I'm all for knowing the pros and cons of individual users. You've done enough reading on it. Please do post your findings.

Have you been using it yourself, Steve?

Jen

[Twickle Purple]

How dare you attempt to find out what side-effects people using RLT may have experienced.

Blasphemy.

And there it is.

[Steve95301]

Gawd Steve! I'm all for knowing the pros and cons of individual users. You've done enough reading on it. Please do post your findings.

Have you been using it yourself, Steve?

Jen

Of course I'm not using it.

What does that have to do with anything?

Of course, I am evaluating it for possible use, why wouldn't I? But I just view it as a treatment, not a religion. So I'm attempting to make an informed decision. Do you know what would be a great help in making an informed decision?

LEARNING WHAT SIDE-EFFECTS OTHERS HAVE HAD.

So just stop bullying people and let members respond honestly to the poll.

(And, FYI, there's practically no information out there on how RLT affects rosaceans. That's why this forum is such a potentially helpful source of information that's not available elsewhere.)

[Twickle Purple]

So just stop bullying people

Wow, you are actually serious. You, of all people shouldn't say that. You have been a first class bully. You bash and belittle and have nothing of value to add on this subj ect except to bully! Shame on you.

[Twickle Purple]

(And, FYI, there's practically no information out there on how RLT affects rosaceans. That's why this forum is such a potentially helpful source of information that's not available elsewhere.)

Guess we're not Rosaceans Jen. :roll: Same with all the other members on the forum that use this and post positively, according to Einstein here, they're not Rosaceans either.

[Steve95301]

Perhaps you could consider that the positive benefits of RLT for Rosacea have indeed been well documented here and therefore those who are trying it do not have negative responses to offer. Of course, I can only speak for myself but I have had no negative reactions.

Instead of "perhaps considering" that nobody has experienced side-effects, maybe he could just ask.

Something like...

I don't know...

gonna go way out on a limb here...

maybe a... POLL?

If you can only speak for yourself, maybe he should ask others, to find out their experiences. But that would -- again -- involve polling.

[Twickle Purple]

If you can only speak for yourself, maybe he should ask others, to find out their experiences.

Since, you ALWAYS have something to say on this subject. Never missing a chance to bash away. Maybe you should speak for yourself. what is YOUR experience? Hmmmm?:-s

[redhotoz]

Hi Steve

Evaluation, weighing up the pros and cons, being well informed of any possible treatment for Rosacea, is of course the best way to go. No doubt about that. What I am saying is, as Nullbit has pointed out, he has already read many positive reports on RLT for Rosacea, so one could assume that perhaps those who are using it do not have negative reports to offer.

Steve, I am not bullying anyone. I'm sad that you feel that I am bullying people. It's simply not my nature. I think I have made it quite clear that I am all for hearing from anyone who has experienced negative results from RLT. There just doesn't seem to be any out there, so surely this means something?

Steve, I get the feeling that you have something that you want to share. Something that says low level red light therapy is not a good thing for Rosacea. Please do share.

Jen

[Steve95301]

Steve, I get the feeling that you have something that you want to share. Something that says low level red light therapy is not a good thing for Rosacea. Please do share.

Jen

Apparently my opinion regarding the objectivity of RLT discussions on this forum was unclear. I apologize. For the record:

I am of the opinion that the objective discussion of LLRLT is difficult, if not impossible, in this forum due to those members who interpret questions about RLT as somehow equivalent to personal attacks, and who inevitably overwhelm and ruin any attempts at such discussion.

I hope that's clear now? Therefore in response to your invitation to "share":

I would actually love to have an objective discussion of RLT -- why else do you think it irritates me that such a discussion is impossible?

[Twickle Purple]

Objectivity? It would be good to see you exercise some.

I can objectively say that what we experience is all subjective. This is obvious really. ALL medicine/treatment is subjective... differs from individual to individual, contributing factors can be unique to us all.

Your choice to be irritated by folks sharing their experience speaks more to your lack of tolerance towards others than anything else.

[Warren]

I edited the poll so

"What is your most pronounced side-effect (if any) from using red light therapy?" =>
"What is your most pronounced negitive side-effect (if any) from using red light therapy?"

and

"No side-effects" => "No negitive side-effects"

To avoid the confusion.

Please try to keep your posts on topic and if you would like to deviate from the main topic then start a new thread.

[redhotoz]

Steve, I think all folks feel passionate about what they are trying for the control of their own Rosacea symptoms, when it is working. I think it is also important to remember what happened with this subject in the past.

Nullbit has asked for any negative reactions to LLRLT. Anyone who has experienced this can easily submit a response to the Poll and post details.

Honestly, if you feel that the discussions about LLRLT are not objective, then please do post your findings. Perhaps you could start a new thread detailing your research on the pros and cons. What I read now is that the people (including myself) do not have any negatives to report but hey, if genuine negatives are posted, then it's worth consideration and further investigation/discussion.

Jen

[Steve95301]

I agree that this discussion has gotten off-topic.

IMO, it was off-topic from the very first post. If a person is polling for side-effects, and you haven't had any, then why reply?

I think all responses should be deleted, and the poll allowed to go forward. IMO, the current atmosphere of the thread would tend to make potential poll participants hesitant to reply because they might be attacked.

[Twickle Purple]

Hmmm. You're the only person on here that attacked. I think the onslot was in response to that. I responded, as I use RLT. How about you? Why did YOU post here?

There has never been one instance where RLT users attack ANYONE for their experiences with it. You must be taking Nase lessons in insinuation.

[Peter]

Hey Steve

Just saw the new poll and have cast my vote.

I didn't hesitate and I certainly wasn't frightened of being attacked by anybody on here!

Thanks

Peter

[GJ]

When I first tried RLT it caused slight flushing during treatments. But I was young and foolish.

Second time round, a less rash approach, and no side-effects save for an uncommon, ghostly paleness about the chops.

The trick is to rub a touch of lipstick into the cheeks.

[mj2006]

To a select few...

Why not give people the benefit of the doubt? When looking into new treatments the only reason for doing so is the hope that it will help your condition. So it only seems logical that one would want to know of any negative side effects(so that they can weigh the risks vs the benefits). All of you who attacked the person who posted this poll should apoligize for your rudeness. And all the posts which do not specifically talk about the negative side effects or the positive results in a polite manner should be deleted.

Personally I am intrigued by this treatment, but I'll probably wait for studies to come out before trying it out. Until then, the more I here about peoples experiences (both good and bad), the better.

[redhotoz]

I thought I would point out that since Warren changed the wording of the Poll, my vote in the newly worded Poll is "No negative side-effects". My original vote was "Other", but I can not change my vote now.

I do hope that everyone who has voted in the Poll, also posts to explain why they voted that way. There have been 13 votes to date but it appears that not everyone who has voted, has actually given more details as to why they voted that way. I believe it would be especially beneficial to hear from those who have voted negative results so that we may gain a better understanding of what unit was used, what level of power, how long before the negative result was noticed etc etc.

Jen

[jsack214]

<One thing I would like to point out is that putting INFRARED to your face is not a good idea. NEAR infrared perhaps but I haven't tried it myself. >

Just wanted to add that the RLT therapy I have been using is a combination of red light and infrared, but mostly infrared, and I also have only seen great improvement in all aspects of my conditon. It's pretty much winter here again in New England and I haven't had a single, not one indoor flush yet this season, which is truly a freakin miracle! Diet has played a small role, but I have stopped doxycycline and doryx completely and definitely attribute 70% of my improvement to infrared/red light therapy.

Jessica

[jsack214]

oops, that was supposed to say I have stopped doxycyline and noritate completely. doxycycline and doryx are the same thing.

[GJ]

One thing I would like to point out is that putting INFRARED to your face is not a good idea.

Nice work, Jessica.

Jen, are you referring to the problem with the eyes or have you come across another possible hazard with infrared use?

Thanks

[redhotoz]

Hi GJ

Well, it's my understanding that one of the common uses for infrared is for sore muscle/joint relief, a heat lamp, similar to putting heat cream on sports injuries etc. Infrared is not low level light. The two who saw Dr Crouch, made their unit up with infrared LEDs but also covered them with lenses, which would have intensified the light, hence they burnt their skin. Infrared is going up the scale of light and I am quite concerned that if infrared is given the go ahead, this may happen again. I'm just being cautious.

-----

Thanks for the info Jessica.

Glad to hear things are going well for you with your unit. Can I please ask how long you put the infrared lights to your face and at what distance? Is it a commercial unit or home made? How many lights do you have and do you know the output/specs of your unit?

Thanks

Jen

[Twickle Purple]

Hi Jen,

I am the same as Jessica. I use the combo 660/880nm panels now in my 2200+ LED Dimalux unit and it gives me an even better improvement that the 660nm only panels did. Though 880nm is generally called near infrared. I also have a unit which has 950nm LEDs which I use for my neck and upper chest areas. It is made for facial application as well. Both have been marvelously effective for me.

I understand that a number of LLT users do use a 660/880nm combo system.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, I understood Dr. Crouch's fellows used a different type of LED entirely (a special 'super' LED) and then amplified it with lenses.

Twickle Purple

[redhotoz]

Hi TP

This is where I am a bit confused then. You have added the 880nm panels into your Dimalux unit now and use the 950nm on your neck and upper chest. Interesting that the 950nm is made for facial application as well. This would certainly scare me. I'm ok with low level light at home but anything more...ahhhh...just worries me. Do you use the 950nm on your face TP?

Listen, I'm no "Red Light Therapy Guru" as someone once stated, Twinkie! :wink: I'm happy with my low powered array but am willing to learn more about higher powered units. Just cautious.

Yes, that is my understanding too about what burnt Dr Crouch's patients.

Jen

[GJ]

Thanks for the note of caution, Jen.

My hope would be that infrared is better than red at reducing persistent and intense flushing.

I think Jessica uses the same unit as Heather. A tidy little number:

http://www.lighttherapyproducts.com/LEDtechnology.html

[Tioh2001]

Jen,

I don't know where you heard that infrared light cannot be considered low level light. This is not true. It depends on the strength (joules or watts) of the light emited, not the wavelength.

Therefore red light and infrared light can be both low level and high level....it depends on the strength of light the unit emits.

The only light unit I have used is a mostly infrared light (20 red LEDs @ 660 nm and 154 infrared LEDs @ 880 nm). It is a low level light unit. I have posted many notes about my experience using this red/infrared light unit, and I have had only good results.

Heather

[Tioh2001]

GJ,

>>>My hope would be that infrared is better than red at reducing persistent and intense flushing.>>>>

This is exactly why I chose a red/infrared unit. I have such EXTREME flushing, I hoped that the infrared light (which penetrates further into the dermis than red) would be of more benefit than the all red.

It is a low level light unit. It is made specifically for the face (although not specifically for rosacea).

Heather

[Twickle Purple]

Hi TP

This is where I am a bit confused then. You have added the 880nm panels into your Dimalux unit now and use the 950nm on your neck and upper chest. Interesting that the 950nm is made for facial application as well. This would certainly scare me. I'm ok with low level light at home but anything more...ahhhh...just worries me. Do you use the 950nm on your face TP?

Listen, I'm no "Red Light Therapy Guru" as someone once stated, Twinkie! :wink: I'm happy with my low powered array but am willing to learn more about higher powered units. Just cautious.

Yes, that is my understanding too about what burnt Dr Crouch's patients.

Jen

Hi Jen,

You give helpful counsel and advise, so you are indeed our very own Guru!

The 660/950 unit I have is supposedly made for professional 'beauty' salons, for facials. Yes, I do use it on my face, I bought one for my mum too. I love the results I've had since I bumped up the wavelength on my big unit. I have been positively ghostly some mornings. Twice I've gone out with blusher and lipstick! (I bought all new Clinique makeup so everything is fresh and contaminate free.)

Think of the wavelength as the 'color' of the light. That is loosely speaking for the purpose of this discussion, because we are refering to a very narrow wavelength range here. (It's an enormous topic that includes gamma rays, radio, xray and microwaves.) The near infrared is beyond what we can see, which is why goggles are recommended.

I also have extreme flushing as my primary symptom. Going into the near infrared range has made me even paler and my telangiectasia is less pronounced.

Twinkie :wink:

[Canarygirl]

Here is a bit of not-very scientific info. on the unit I bought. It is called the Baby Quasar, made by Advanced Therapeutics. I copied this info. off the eBay listing. Note that treatment for rosacea is not even listed below. I have found that it does reduce my red blotchiness quite significantly. As far as side effects, my skin does feel a bit tight and dry after a treatment, almost like I have a sun or wind burn. I wrote to the manufacturer about that and they acted like I was the first person who had EVER reported a negative side effect. They said that there were no contraindications for using their device. So maybe I'm weird. The slight discomfort did pass in a couple days. I plan to keep using it as it is helping.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Baby Quasar has the same wavelengths and frequencies as the professional Quasar model but is designed for the individual who wants to do their own maintenance treatments and touch ups.

Light Therapy decreases the flaws we would like to be without, such as:

Acne & Blemishes

Age Spots

Skin redness, including Rosacea

Fine lines due to sun-damage

Perinocular wrinkles

Enlarged pores

Coarse skin

Skin laxity

Why purchase the Quasar over other photo rejuvenation devices?

Four different wavelengths: Other cosmetic models use one or two wavelengths, and the often quoted NASA research used three wavelengths. We use four wavelengths to stimulate as many cellular processes as possible.

SequePulse Technology: Our patent pending answer to the problems associated with the use of multiple wavelengths.


The Quasar has 24 red and infrared LED's using four different nanometers

Other features include:

A High/Low Frequency Modulator is incorporated into the hand piece.

Total Digital Circuitry

[jsack214]

<<Can>>

Yup--I use the exact same one as Heather and although I'm positive my case wasn't as severe as hers, I'm definitely happy with my choice. It's for 9 minutes a day, and I think whoever else answered gave you the rest of the info.

From the little I know about the light spectrum from my chemistry classes, the frequency of infrared light waves is actually less than red light waves, and consequently even gentler. They are further than red from ultra-violet, generally considered the more damaging rays and therefore wasn't too worried. I talked to my chemistry professor (definitely more useful than my dermatologist...) beforehand and he said if anything it would be ineffective but certainly not harmful. :-)

I've been using it since the end of May and while I saw a reduction a redness within a few weeks, I have been able to push my flush limits more and more. Drinking inside is barely a trigger as long as I'm not in a sweater or something. THe only thing I stlil really have problems with is exercise. Probably in part because I recently quite smoking and although I'm not overweight, I'm definitely not in shape.

Jessica

[redhotoz]

I've been reading with interest and trying to work things out in my head as far as the light spectrum goes.

I know Nullbit, who started this Poll, said that we should leave Infrared to another discussion but since it has come about now, perhaps it could be addressed in this thread.

I am trying to work out where the line is drawn between near infrared and infrared. The terms near infrared and infrared seem to be interchanged. It is my understanding that infrared generates heat and that concerns me.

GJ, yes, Heather/Jessica's unit is a nice looking one and certainly seems to be working, which is fantastic. It would be interesting to know if near infrared/infrared helps more with intense flushing, over red. I must get myself motivated to contact some companies and ask if they would contribute to a study via the RRDi.

Heather, as you have posted, infrared can be low or high level light, depending "on the strength (joules or watts) of the light emited, not the wavelength." Since discussions seem to be mostly centred around the wavelength (nm), not joules or watts, I worry that someone may opt for high power infrared. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious but I do believe we should clarify as best we can here so that we never see anyone harm their face with high powered lights again. Just call me "Mum"! :lol: So pleased to hear that things are still going so well for you Heather.

TP, please don't use that 4 letter word on me "Guru" :lol: I may have to send my biker boyfriend out to Canada to hunt you down! :lol: At least you don't have Aboriginal trackers where you live! :) Sorry, I digress...

I'm very interested to hear that your "telangiectasia is less pronounced." I have found that since my face has become less red all over, my spider veins are more noticeable. Which in a round about way means that things are going well for me. Well, that's how I evaluate it. The spider veins used to be the same colour as my face but now I can see them. I wonder if I get a second unit with near infrared or infrared, use it for a short time on my face (9 minutes is what Heather/Jessica's commercial unit suggests) would help with those too? Again, this is where I get confused because the unit Heather and Jessica are using says it's infrared on the web site but where is that cut off point from near infrared to infrared. Or am I getting myself into a tizzy? :shock:

Jessica, that's really interesting about infrared being gentler than red light. I guess as long as it is low watts/joules it's ok? Personally for me though, I often fall asleep under my low level red LED array and wake up about 2 hours later. So, perhaps I would have to do a separate session with near infrared/infrared...a shorter session?

Jen

[Canarygirl]

Redhotoz,

Could you please elaborate on your comment --about not wanting to see anyone harm their face with stronger infrared light again. :?:

Since the Baby Quasar I purchased uses mixed light types including infrared, and since I experienced dryness/discomfort for a few days after use, I am concerned. The manufacturer was not helpful (per my post).

If anyone can suggest specific questions about types of light waves, frequencies etc. that I can ask this manufacturer, expecially in relation to rosacea treatment, I would be most grateful.

:)

[Twickle Purple]

I believe that near infrared would be to 1000nm. I use a unit that has nine 950nm LEDs. These do generate a mild heat. Near infrared can generate heat -- the more LEDs the more heat. Higher MCD LEDs will generate heat as well. I have no undesirable side effects from this, only good ones. The unit head may warm up but it leaves my skin cooler on completion of the application.

Another unit has almost 2300 LEDs, half that are 880nm but with lower MCD than my 950nm LEDs. This unit runs for 20 minutes at a time and remains cool. So I think that 2 things come into play: the wavelength and the brightness (MCD) of the LED.

[jsack214]

<<Personally>>

I am also confused as to the exact difference between red and infrared. I would assume that it anywhere between 660 nm(red) and 880 nm (infrared)? As far as falling asleep under it, the great thing about that unit is that it automatically turns off after the alotted 9 minutes. Don't have to worry about a thing. :-)

Jessica

[Twickle Purple]

I'm not scientific, but I'm going to take a stab at answering this.

Red (or far red in the case of 660nm) falls in the (very) narrow visible light range. Infrared (which is not red at all) is invisible to the eye. Check out the 2 illustrations below. You will see the very large range within the infrared category.

LED therapy systems that I have seen which are near infrared have wavelengths that fall into the lower end of the near infrared range.

http://www.anniroc.com/TP/wavelength.jpg

http://www.anniroc.com/TP/spectrum-expanded.jpg


A little bit about infrared in general. (http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/infrared.html)

Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths that range from red light to violet. "Near infrared" light is closest in wavelength to visible light and "far infrared" is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.

Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature.

Infrared light is even used to heat food sometimes - special lamps that emit thermal infrared waves are often used in fast food restaurants!

Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all - in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV's remote control.

How can we "see" using the Infrared?

Since the primary source of infrared radiation is heat or thermal radiation, any object which has a temperature radiates in the infrared. Even objects that we think of as being very cold, such as an ice cube, emit infrared. When an object is not quite hot enough to radiate visible light, it will emit most of its energy in the infrared. For example, hot charcoal may not give off light but it does emit infrared radiation which we feel as heat. The warmer the object, the more infrared radiation it emits.

Humans, at normal body temperature, radiate most strongly in the infrared at a wavelength of about 10 microns. (A micron is the term commonly used in astronomy for a micrometer or one millionth of a meter.)

[redhotoz]

Could you please elaborate on your comment --about not wanting to see anyone harm their face with stronger infrared light again. :?:

Hi Canarygirl

Back in January two people saw Dr Crouch with burns to their faces after constructing and using a home made device with high powered components. You can check out the details in this thread:

http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=4199

This is a quote from the website I found
“Model SHPL-810-260 This is the evil twin to the SHPL-660 on the Red LED page… Mounted in a very beefy metal stud package, this LED means business… With an optical output of 250 milliwatts at 810nm, this infrared powerhouse will fry your eyeballs if you stare into it. Even so, DO NOT, and I mean DO NOT look directly into this LED from any closer than about three feet away”.

The email I received describes the construction thus:-

“I’ve done a diagram of one of the two panels which I hope explains why the panels ended up as they did – we glued the edges of the lenses to one another and to the plastic edges of the clusters to support them over the single 810nm LEDs (the lenses overlapped the 810nm LEDs so this is why the 810s are shown as a blue circle behind a circular lens):-“

The diagram they supplied shows 12 of the 810nm LEDs each with a lens over the top and 8 of the clusters of 52 LEDs each arranged in a panel.

So they used lenses and high powered components in their quest to construct a Light Therapy device. I think I can establish that it was the lenses and the power of the single LED components that concentrated the Infra-Red beam (not the clusters of 52 low powered LEDs). Certainly the website research above suggests that this LED could be dangerous.

-----

Hi Jessica

Ah, a 9 minute timer - that's brilliant. I must say, I really do like the look of the unit you are using. Might buy myself one for Christmas and see if I can knock the Rosacea back even more. I must say though, I am doing really well at the moment with my LED array. It definitley makes a difference when I am consistent with it, making sure I do it every night.

-----

Hi TP

Thanks for posting that scale. I did do some Googling but there were a lot of web sites that talked about infrared photography, which didn't really help me to understand. I truly appreciate your searching skills!

Jen

[phlika29]

redhotoz

Can reccomend trying infrared film for your photography. You get the most spectacluar efects, but need a bright sunny day. :wink:

[Tioh2001]

Heather, as you have posted, infrared can be low or high level light, depending "on the strength (joules or watts) of the light emited, not the wavelength."

Jen,

Just in case you missed this in my note....RED light....and infrared light can be both low level and high level.

It's not just infrared that can be both.

Just look at IPL and laser. Both of these technologies can use RED light wavelengths only and both are considered high powered.

And keep in mind, the 2 people who used the high powered unit and got burned...THE UNIT HAD BOTH RED AND INFRARED light. So the issue really is that these 2 people used an inappropriate light, not intended for the face.

Jen, you said "I worry that someone may opt for high power infrared"...yes that is a worry. But it is just as much a worry that someone may opt for high power RED lights.

So, if someone is going to build their own unit, they better know what they are doing!

Heather

[Twickle Purple]

redhotoz

Can reccomend trying infrared film for your photography. You get the most spectacluar efects, but need a bright sunny day. :wink:

You been to the Flikr site (http://www.flickr.com/)? Terrific stuff!

[Twickle Purple]

Thanks for posting that scale. I did do some Googling but there were a lot of web sites that talked about infrared photography, which didn't really help me to understand. I truly appreciate your searching skills!

Jen

No problem at all. Before I jumped into this I needed to learn as much as I could so I would at least have a good idea what it is that I was getting into. My books are very helpful but I'm a terrible typist. Gotta love the Internet. Not much on RLT+Rosacea though.

[Eric]

I am bringing this poll back to the front so that people who have tried this recently can vote. I wonder if it would make sense to have this as a sticky...is it me or are there more negative stories recently than good ones...?

[moomy]

Perhaps people are more likely to post a negative experience. I've had great results with red light. decreased redness and decreased flushing.

I use mine quite sparingly. for me the key is not to overuse it.

moomy

[Melissa W]

Hi Moomy,
What RLT unit do you use and for how long? Also, how far do you sit from it?
I'm glad you're having success with the RLT!

All the best,
Melissa

[moomy]

Hi Melissa,

I use the lightstim hand held unit which is a mix of red and infrared. I hold it right on the area (touching) for about 2 minutes per area.


whole face takes about 20 minutes. I have found it very good, .


http://www.lightstim.com/index-1.html

My main problems are permanent redness and p&p's, flushing is more of an occasional problem for me (about once a week or less) ... perhaps that makes a difference. I guess it could be that the more easilly you flush normally the more likely you are to react to rlt???

[Melissa W]

Thanks for the info Moomy.
I am thinking of trying RLT after I finish all my laser procedures.

Best wishes,
Melissa

[IowaDavid]

Thanks for the info Moomy.
I am thinking of trying RLT after I finish all my laser procedures.

Best wishes,
Melissa


As far as I've experienced, RLT is a great adjunct to thermal laser treatments--it reduces inflammation and the flush response. I've used RLT the same day as my laser appointments, and then regularly thereafter. Of course, the best benefits are after several months of use.

I'm not saying RLT will work for everyone. Just like IPL will not work for everyone. Or low-dose accutane...et al. But I do have a very hard time understanding how RLT would make one's rosacea worse. Of course, we don't have the medical documentation to back this modality up, so, it's really a guessing game if you don't like piles of anecdotal experiences.

If a person feels that their condition has been worsened by RLT, I'd also like to hear about what other things they're trying at the time.

I say this because I know I've blamed benign things for the worsening in my condition--I mean, I've been myopic and totally stupid about some things I've used to help my rosacea.

Anyway, for what it's worth. Just some thoughts.

[Melissa W]

Hi IowaDavid,

Thanks for all the info on RLT. I am still in the process of going through all the previous threads and I am finding them extremely helpful!

For an RLT beginner do you have a recommendation as to what store bought device to initially use? I would prefer something easy and portable.

All the best,
Melissa

[redhotoz]

Hi Melissa

I'm not David but I would suggest that you check out the two 'Sticky' threads at the top of this area:

http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=4171

http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=4683

Jen

[Melissa W]

Thanks Jen!

Best wishes,
Melissa

[betty]

Hi Melissa,

I'd say start very slowly with RLT, maybe a minute or so and work your way up from that. I think I read that your skin was super sensitive to topicals (like mine). Maybe try using the lamp you have at a distance of about 15 cm to start off with and move it closer if you think your skin can handle it.

I'm no expert of course, but I wish I'd started a lot slower with red light, you can never be too cautious I think with skin like ours. 8 minutes I think was too much for my cheeks, 1 minute to begin with would have been much better to let the skin sort of acclimatise.

Best wishes for big improvements,

Betty. X

[Melissa W]

Hi Betty,

Thanks so much for your good advice.
You're right, my skin is supersensitive and I can't use any topicals like metrolotion, rosac, etc. Even calendula gel breaks me out in hives!

I'm not ready to start RLT yet because I still have some more laser procedures to do and more reading on what RLT device would be best for me. When I do begin I will follow your instructions about starting very slowly and not closer than 15 cm. Thanks again for your help.

All the best,
Melissa

[kryszrich]

hello,

so...i started the rlt therapy four days ago. i am only using red (no infrared). for the first two days things were going great!!! i couldn't believe the results after only the first time. However, the past two days the opposite...i am getting increased flushing. is it normal to experience this side effects at first? am i doing too much too soon (twice a day for 15 minutes). my lamp is bought online and made to be used for acne/rosacea. i am thinking that maybe my face is too dry after washing and going straight to rlt is not a good idea. what do others think?

actually the very first time i did it,...the time i got great results...i was so eager to use it i didn't even wash my face before hand...so it was moist with SPF 15 sunscreen.

[Melissa W]

Hi,

I find that it makes my face drier so I moisturize beforehand and that helps. Also, I would recommend starting at one session per day and working your way up. My understanding is that the effects are cumulative and you want to build it up slowly.

I would take it slowly, not get too close to the light at first and expect it wll take time to see improvement.

I am new to the low level light therapy myself so hopefully someone with more experience will give you their advice.

Congratulations on beginning RLT and best of luck to you!
I hope you get great results!

Melissa